You are on page 1of 235

Does God Make Us Suffer?

And 10 Other Soul-Searching Questions

Anonymous
Does God Make Us Suffer?
And 10 Other Soul-Searching Questions
Anonymous

Copyright © 2017 Actual Truth Publishing


ACTUAL TRUTH PUBLISHING
http://www.actualtruth.org

All rights reserved.


Publishers Cataloging in Publication Data
Anonymous
Does God Make Us Suffer?
First Edition

This Ebook is licensed only for the use of the per-


son who downloaded it. This Ebook may not be re-sold
or given away to other people. If you would like to share
this book with another person, please download an ad-
ditional copy for each recipient. Furthermore, the
copyright prohibits the copying and/or plagiarizing of
any of the text contained in this book.
Teacherss
For my Teacher
Table of Contents
___________________________________________

INTRODUCTION ................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................ 1

1. WHO
WHO AM I?................................
I? ................................................................
................................................................................................
.................................................................
................................. 5

2. WHY
WHY AM I HERE? ................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................73
................... 73

3. WHAT
WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE FOR
FOR EXISTING?................................
EXISTING? ....................................
....................................81
.... 81

4. WHAT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR
FOR THIS
THIS WORLD? .............................86
............................. 86

5. WHAT
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF
OF LIFE?................................
LIFE? ..................................................
..................................................95
.................. 95

6. WHY
WHY DO WE DIE?................................
DIE? ................................................................
..................................................................................
..................................................99
.................. 99

7. WHY
WHY DO WE FEEL PAIN? ................................................................
................................................................ 108

8. DOES
DOES GOD MAKE US SUFFER?
SUFFER? ....................................................
.................................................... 120

9. WHY
WHY DO CHILDREN SUFFER?
SUFFER?................................
R? .......................................................
....................................................... 169

10. IS
IS GOD AN ANGRY GOD? ............................................................
............................................................ 181

11. HOW
HOW DO I ESCAPE THIS WORLD OF SUFFERING?...........
SUFFERING? ........... 189

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY


BIBL IOGRAPHY ..................................................
.................................................. 210
Introduction

The question of suffering has helped create an


epidemic of atheism in our society. And for some, ag-
nosticism.
The question of suffering as proposed, goes
something like this:
“If God exists, why is there so much suffering?”
This question comes in other various forms as
well:
“If God is good, why do children starve?”
“If God is fair, why are some born with congenital
diseases?”
“If God is kind, why do people die?”
This can also come in the form of a first-person
question:
“Why has God given me this disease?”
“Why would a kind God make me suffer like
this?”
A theist may bristle at these questions. Yet these
are, in fact, intelligent questions. They are necessary
questions.
These questions boil down to: Is God not fair? Is
God not kind? Does God enjoy making us suffer?

1
These questions are not being adequately an-
swered by today’s many sectarian religious institutions
and their teachers.
As a result, many people have either made the de-
termination that there is no God (atheist). Or they have
taken the position that they don’t know whether God
exists or not (agnosticism).
Some sectarian institutions and their teachers
have even reverted to speculative philosophies that God
is vengeful and mean. They communicate that God en-
joys making us suffer. Or that God punishes people for
not being devoted to Him.
Many of these have been derived from sectarian
translations of the Old Testament, portraying God as be-
ing a vengeful and angry God.
This teaching has also led many to reject the ac-
ceptance of God, based upon the assumption that they
do not want to have a relationship with a vengeful and
angry person that they have to constantly fear.
This point of fear has worked in the past, however.
And it still works today, for those institutions that want
to scare us into coming to their churches, synagogues or
temples. The idea that if we don’t join their group we
will suffer even worse than we suffer now is an attractive
enticement for many.
Others simply take the atheistic or agnostic posi-
tion to protect themselves from the fear. `
Supporting the agnostic or atheist conclusion are
so many materialist scientists. Many of these will say
there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

2
They claim there is neither evidence, nor is there any
rationalization for the existence of God.
We combat this position with irrefutable logic and
evidence in our book, “The Science of Faith.”
Nevertheless, in order to first come to a position
of confidence in the existence of God, this question of
suffering must be answered.
And to answer this question of suffering, we must
also answer a number of other questions, regarding our
identity, our purpose and the meaning of life itself.
That is what the purpose of this book is. To step
through the various keys to understand the universe and
why there is suffering in the physical world.
This book will also explain why suffering is a mani-
festation that is separate from our selves. It could be
compared to the suffering that takes place within a
dream.
Furthermore, this book will explain the ultimate
purpose for the physical world and how suffering relates
to our journey of learning. This book will also explain
how we can extract ourselves from the consciousness of
suffering, and regain our original pure state of bliss
within the spiritual realm.
The format of this book is in question form. The
central questions that revolve around the issue of suffer-
ing relate to who we are, why we are here and what our
purpose is. After these, questions relate more specifically
to why good and bad things happen, why there are
consequences for things and so on.
Then as we get through answering these impor-
tant questions, we can tackle the super-critical questions
3
relating to what is suffering and why is there suffering in
the physical world.
Then finally, these lead us to the role that the Su-
preme Being plays in the physical world, and ultimately,
who is responsible for the suffering that takes place
here.
As we delve into these topics, numerous other
questions often come up. For this reason, this text has
been oriented around asking and answering this myriad
of important questions about our existence, and the ex-
istence of the Supreme Being.
Please know that this project was not undertaken
lightly, nor without guidance. This book is not specula-
tive commentary or guesswork. The information
presented here has been derived from confidential
teachings handed down through generations of spiritual
teachers – from devoted Teacher to humble student, for
thousands of years.
Please excuse if some of the precepts included in
this book are repeated. The purpose is to lay out the
situation from several viewpoints and contexts, in order
to create a clearer understanding.
Thank you for taking the time to read this work. I
pray you find it useful to your search and journey home.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions
by email at info@actualtruth.org.

4
Question One:
Who am I?
The first question that must be answered in order
to adequately answer the central question of this text
relates to identity. Since we are speaking of suffering, we
must first ask WHO or WHAT is suffering?
If we assume that “I” suffer, then we must ask, who
is that “I” is purported to suffer? WHO or WHAT is being
subjected to suffering?
One may scoff at this question, but it is a neces-
sary one.
Let’s consider an example. Let’s say a pregnant
woman gets in an automobile accident, and she is in
pain from her wounds. What about the fetus? Is the fetus
also feeling pain? Both were seemingly involved in the
auto accident. But perhaps the fetus didn’t feel a thing –
just some motion.
In the same way, as we speak of suffering, we
must take a step back to determine just what or who is
suffering.
What is suffering? Most of us will assume suffering
is related strictly to the sensation of physical pain. But
some will include mental anguish. We can assume the
experience of suffering relates to the following:
Physical pain – pain of the physical body
Physical trauma – a chronic physical struggle.
Emotional/mental pain – suffering related to
mental anguish or moods.

5
Suffering in all of its forms can be focused down
to one or a combination of these three types of pain or
trauma. In most circumstances, suffering will begin with
physical pain. Or there will be generalized discomfort
which may endure. Often, mental anguish will follow as
that pain and traumatic experience is reflected upon or
re-experienced in some form or another.
These sorts of traumatic experiences often create
a long-term emotional fall-out. This sort of mental an-
guish is often described as post-traumatic stress
disorder, or PTSD. A fancy name for the after-affects of
experiencing physical pain and trauma.
Sometimes physical pain will be chronic. That is,
the pain will be enduring for awhile. This sort of pain can
create long-term trauma as one attempts to adjust and
adapt to a chronic struggle.
The bottom line is that since the sources of suffer-
ing are either physical or mental pain and trauma – they
are rooted in either the physical body or the mind.
Therefore, our question should now become, are
we the physical body? Are we the mind? Since these are
the subjects of pain and trauma, these are worthwhile
questions.
So let’s uncover the answer to the underlying
question – who am I?
Am I the physical body?
If we ask someone who they are, they will most
likely describe their body’s physical features. Or perhaps
their body’s country of origin. They might say “I am
American” or “I am British.” Or “I am black” or “I am
6
white.” Or “I am a woman” or “I am a man.” Or “I am five
feet tall and weigh 125 pounds” or “I am six feet and
weigh 200 pounds.”
This begs the logical question: Am I this physical
body?
If so, what happens when my body changes? Do I
become a different person?
What happens if I change my hair color or get a
tattoo?
What happens when my body gets older?
What happens if my body gets crippled or I lose
an arm or leg?
When my body changes, does my identity
change?
This is answered simply by each of us as we refer
to something we did in the past. We will say, “when I
was younger, I ________.” Even though it was five, ten
even 20 years ago, we still feel that I am still the same
person I was – indicated by the use of the word “I”. If we
didn’t think that I was me 20 years ago, we wouldn’t use
“I” or “me.”
This constant self-identification becomes more
important when we realize that science has determined
that practically every molecule and atom in our body is
recycled and replaced within five years. This means the
makeup of our body is constantly changing.
Most of us assume that our identity runs deeper
than our physical body. A person with a black body
wants equality with a person with a white body because
that person considers that beneath the skin, we are all of
the same substance. Similarly, a person with an obese
7
body wants to be treated equally with someone with a
more slender body. Why would we request equality
unless we are assuming we have deeper identities?
The debate of the self
As science has debated this topic, there have
been two general views (Popper and Eccles 1983): The
first assumes a machine-like information-processing
generating system with various modules of activity, all
competing for control. This “chaos-machine” theoreti-
cally builds upon a system of learning and evolution
without any central person or actor.
The other, more prevalent view historically por-
trays the body as driven by an inner self or life force,
central and governing to the body’s existence. Propo-
nents of this inner self model have included Socrates,
Aristotle, Plato, Jesus and many other teachers and phi-
losophers throughout modern and ancient history. For
example, Jesus taught:
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28 NIV)
While some have considered the soul as some
sort of organ or component of the body, others refer to
the soul as part of a trinity: “body, mind and spirit.”
The word “soul” from Jesus’ statement is trans-
lated from the Greek word, ψυχή (psychē), which means,
according to Strong’s lexicon, “the vital force which ani-
mates the body and shows itself in breathing” and “the
seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions.” The
lexicon goes further to say, “the soul as an essence

8
which differs from the body and is not dissolved by
death (distinguished from other parts of the body).”
Thus, according to Jesus, we do not have a soul –
each of us is a soul.
Do I die when my body dies?
We know every body dies. We can easily observe
that the body no longer functions. Regardless of which
outward signs and symptoms we use, there is a dramatic
change in the body at the time of death. The body
ceases to function. The body ceases the display of life
and the outward demonstration of personality.
Where did this personality go then? Did it disap-
pear into thin air? Did it evaporate with the final breath?
Did this personality die with the death of the body?
Before we can fully understand death, we must
understand life. What is a live person, and what is the
difference between life and death? What is the differ-
ence between a dead body and a living body, and how
is the personality we know and hold dear connected
with life?
This means we must delve into the source of the
energy and life of the body. Where is the generator of
the body? Who or what is running the body? This cer-
tainly relates to the concept of identity: Are we each
simply a temporary physical body? Are we simply cellu-
lar machines that decompose after a few decades?
What’s a dead body?
Discerning the difference between a living body
and a dead body was the topic of deep discussion
9
among Greek philosophers. The existence of a living
force separate from the body was concluded by Plato,
Aristotle, Ptolemy, Socrates, Hippocrates, Pythagoras,
Origen and many others.
Hippocrates, for example, professed that the life
within the body was due to a “vital spirit” within, which
acted through four different humors.
When one of Socrates’ students asked him how
he wanted to be buried, Socrates gave them a clear re-
ply: He told them they could do whatever they wanted
with his body, because he would be long gone by then.
When we see a living body full of life, movement,
energy, personality and purpose, we can understand
these symptoms of life are residing within the body.
But observation made at the time of the body’s
death indicates this living force departs at the time of
death.
When death arrives, suddenly the symptoms of
life cease: There is no movement, no energy and no per-
sonality remaining within the dead body. The body
becomes lifeless. There is no growth, no will, no person-
ality and no purposeful activity in the body following the
moment of death.
For centuries, doctors, scientists and philosophers
have autopsied, dissected and otherwise examined mil-
lions of dead bodies. No one—not even modern
researchers with highly technical instruments—has
been able to find any chemical or physical element miss-
ing from a dead body that was previously present when
the body was alive.

10
The dead body has every physical and material
component the living body had. All of the cells are still
there. The entire DNA is still there. All the nerves, the or-
gans, the brain and central nervous system—every
physical molecule and cell—are still resident in the ca-
daver.
The one and only claim of a difference, reported
in 1907 by Massachusetts physician Dr. Duncan Mac-
Dougal, proposed a 21-gram weight difference between
a dead and live body. He could not identify the sub-
stance of the difference, however. Dr. MacDougal’s
results were also inconsistent—and were never corrobo-
rated.
MacDougal’s experiment consisted of monitoring
six patients as they died upon a table rigged with a
beam scale. Of the six, two were eliminated because of
technical issues. Three subjects died of tuberculosis. Two
of these were losing weight before and after death by
“evaporation and respiratory moisture.”
One subject died from “consumption” and seem-
ingly lost ¾ of an ounce in weight as he was dying—
later converted to 21.3 grams. Dr. MacDougall admitted
that it was difficult in some cases to know at what point
the patient had died (MacDougall 1907).
A fellow doctor in Massachusetts, Dr. A. Clarke,
debated Dr. MacDougal’s hypothesis and conclusion. Dr.
Clarke argued that the typical sudden rise in body tem-
perature before and subsequent cooling without
circulation upon death could account for slight weight
changes due to evaporation. Especially noting some of
the patients had lethal tuberculosis.
11
While Dr. MacDougal assumed the moment of
death occurred when the patient convulsed a bit and
then lay still without breathing, modern research tells us
that brain death must also occur—something Dr. Mac-
Dougal was not monitoring for.
Until his own death in 1920, Dr. MacDougall tried
to repeat the results and could not confirm his findings.
In one test, he cruelly killed fifteen dogs while weighing
them and found no weight loss. No other study has sub-
stantiated such a theory of weight loss upon death. The
21-gram concept is now relegated to urban myth.
With the exception of this urban myth of a 21-
gram difference, many centuries of cadaver research and
autopsy have carefully examined organs, bones, nerves,
brain, blood, neurochemistry and other vital body parts.
None of these studies has found any structural or bio-
chemical difference between a live and dead body. The
dead body is simply missing an immeasurable element
of life that once animated the body: An invisible force
that gives the body personality, energy, motivation, and
the will to survive.
The life force that drives the body has never been
seen under a microscope or by any other physical in-
strument. Furthermore, since this living force separates
from the body at death—leaving the physical body with
no life—it is obvious that this life force is not physical in
nature.
As the Greek philosophers promulgated, since the
personality is also gone when this life is gone from the
body, it would also be logical that our personality is part
of this life force, and not part of the physical body. The
12
physical body—including all the DNA and neurons—
remains intact in a lifeless, dead body. Therefore, this life
force must also be separate from these physiological
parts—DNA, neurons, the brain, organs, cells and so on.
This might be compared to a car. The car drives
around only when there is a driver within the car direct-
ing its movement. When the car driver gets out of the
car, the car remains immobile – devoid of direction and
purpose.
Since the driver can leave the car, we know the
driver is separate from the car: The driver is not the car—
just as we are not this physical body.
Which body part am I then?
Following an amputation due to an infection or
other injury, no one would claim the amputee is any less
of a person. This is because the same personality is there
despite a massive structural change in the body. This
logic can be extended to even severe cases such as the
loss of both arms and legs or other major parts of the
anatomy.
An explosion or other traumatic accident might
leave ones torso intact while amputating both the
body’s arms and legs. Regardless of losing these ap-
pendages, the person is still perceived as a whole
person—the same person as before—even though their
body cannot function the way it did before.
The person who operates the body still contains
the same conscious being with the same personality.
This is why paraplegic and quadriplegic rights are pro-
tected by law; and why Dr. Steven Hawking, a
13
quadriplegic, is considered one of the today’s foremost
theoretical physicists despite his physical handicaps. He
is regarded as no less of a person than the rest of us.
Physically disabled people are given equal rights be-
cause society considers these persons equal in all
respects, despite deficiencies in their physical bodies.
The physical organs illustrate the same logic. It is
now commonplace in medicine to surgically remove
and replace organs such as kidneys, livers, hearts, hips
and other parts in order to preserve the healthy func-
tioning of the body. Some parts—like hearts and hip
sockets—are now replaced with artificial versions.
Modern medicine has illustrated through many
years of organ transplants that a person’s identity does
not travel with the organ. Otherwise, we might have—as
a few comedic theatrical performances have sug-
gested—people whose personalities reflect their organ
donors. Imagine what would happen if someone receiv-
ing a heart transplant assumed part of the personality of
the dead donor. We’d truly have a mess on our hands.
This situation is analogous to an auto accident: A
car is involved in an accident and brought to an auto
mechanic. The mechanic determines that the car needs
a new set of tires, a new set of bumpers put on, and the
engine rebuilt before the car can be put back on the
road. The driver waits for the repairs to be completed,
and then gets back in the car and drives it away. The
new car parts do not affect the driver. The driver is the
same despite the car’s mechanical changes.
In the same way that the driver is not the car or
the car parts, we are not the body or the body’s parts.
14
Am I the body’s cells?
Throughout its physical lifetime, our body is con-
tinually changing, yet we continue to maintain our core
identity and consciousness. Research has shown all liv-
ing cells in the body have a finite lifespan, ranging from
minutes to days to years. A few cells—such as certain
brain cells and central nervous system cells—may exist
through the duration of the body.
These are the tiny minority of the estimated 200
trillion cells making up the body, however. By far the vast
majority of cells in the body will participate in cell divi-
sion. Following a certain number of divisions, the older
cells will timeout. Dead cells are broken down by the
immune system and discarded, leaving the newly di-
vided cells in their place.
Using this process the body constantly sloughs off
older cells from the body, replacing them with new
ones. Different cells in different parts of the body have
different lifespans. For example:
• Most intestinal wall cells are replaced about
between two and four days
• Stomach lining cells are replaced between
two and nine days
• Blood neutrophils and eosinophils are re-
placed between one and five days
• Lung alveoli cells are replaced within eight
days
• Blood platelets are replaced within 10 days
• Skin epidermis cells are replaced within a
month
15
• The entire liver is regenerated within 18
months
• All the cells of the bones are replaced
within ten years
• Bone osteoplasts are replaced within 90
days
• Cells of the heart (cardiomyocytes) are re-
placed at a rate of up to 10% per year
• Fat cells are all replaced within eight years
• Stem cells are replaced within a few years –
often 3-5 years
• The cells of our entire skeleton are replaced
within 10 years
• Nerve cells and the cells of the lens can live
longer—for decades, and some over the
lifetime of the body. However, most of the
composition of all cells, including many
nerve and stem cells, also turnover.
Don’t atoms within cells also turnover?
Every cell in the body is made up of ionic and mo-
lecular combinations. The atoms that make up these
molecular combinations are constantly being replaced.
Each cell’s cytoplasm, organelles and membrane are
thus made up of recycled atoms.
These atoms are constantly being replaced with
atoms from the matter we take in from breathing, eating
and drinking. New atoms enter the body from the envi-
ronment. Old atoms are expelled through waste and
respiration. The processes of each cell – cell membrane

16
diffusion, osmosis and ionic channel conveyance – allow
a constant recycling of atomic elements.
Research in the 1950s led by Dr. Paul Aebersold –
at the Oak Ridge Atomic Research Center – found that
approximately 98 percent of all the atoms in the body
are replaced annually.
Consider this carefully. This means that the vast
majority of the body’s composition is undergoing con-
stant change.
What are the longest living cells?
In 2005, researchers at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and the Medical Noble Institute at
Karolinska Institute utilized carbon-14 analysis to study
the lifetimes of cells in the body.
Again they confirmed some of the turnover rates
of cells as listed above. They also found that many of the
brain’s cells are generated (neurogeneration) when the
body is young, and many brain and nervous system cells
also turnover during our body’s lifetime.
Yet they also found a few types of neuron cells are
exceptions. These can live without dividing for decades
– and can possibly live over the lifetime of the body.
These include neuron cells of the occipital cortex.
However, these cells will also turnover molecules
and atoms from their cell membranes, cytoplasm and
organelles. The research found that only their genetic
matter – the nucleotides of their DNA – appear not to
turnover as quickly.
Thus we find that even these longest-living cells
in the body still undergo vast change in atomic compo-
17
sition: With the exception of those tiny nucleotides
within their genetic matter, which turnover more slowly.
In other words, the research confirms that the vast
majority of our body’s cells and atoms are undergoing
constant recycling. Those neurons that last longer will
still turnover the majority of their atomic composition.
Doesn’t our body change daily?
Understanding that our physical bodies change
nearly every cell within days, weeks or years; and all our
body’s atoms and molecules are being replaced from
the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we
breathe, we can accurately make the following state-
ment:
The body we are wearing today is not the same
body we were wearing ten years ago.
The vast majority of the cells, molecules and at-
oms that made up that body have been replaced by
new cells, molecules and atoms. There may be a few
atomic threads of genetic matter remaining – but our
body today as a whole is now made of predominantly
different composition than the body we had on ten
years ago.
This might well be compared to a waterfall. The
water within a waterfall is always changing. From mo-
ment to moment, the waterfall will be made up of
different water. Therefore, the waterfall we see today is
not the same waterfall we saw yesterday. Now some of
the larger rocks under the waterfall might be the same
rocks we saw yesterday, but the waterfall itself – the wa-
ter making it up – is completely different water.
18
Since each of us is the same person from moment
to moment and year to year within an ever-changing
body, logically we must each have a composition that is
separate from this temporary fluidic vehicle – the physi-
cal body.
Logically, we could not be this body, since most
of the body is constantly being recycled while we are
still the same person.
For example, should we look at our photograph
taken ten years ago, we will be looking at a different
body from the one we are wearing today. The face we
see in that picture is gone. The face we are wearing now
is completely different than the face in the picture. The
entire skin of the body we have on now has been re-
placed. The entire skeleton will be different. The cells of
the heart, lungs, liver, digestive tract, blood many other
parts will all be new. The vast majority of the atoms that
made up our body ten years ago are gone. They’ve been
replaced by new atoms.
Our body has changed but we are still the same
person. How can this be? It can only be if we are not the
physical body.
Does our body contain more bacteria than cells?
In addition to the point that the vast majority of
our body’s cells and atoms are being constantly re-
placed, we should understand that our body contains
more bacteria than cells: A lot more.
Microbiologists have estimated that the typical
human organism contains ten times more bacteria than
cells. The typical body will contain about 200 trillion
19
cells. But that same body will contain about 2,000 trillion
bacteria units, of hundreds of different species.
Each of these bacteria are single-celled living crea-
tures. Yes, like our cells, bacteria have cell walls and
cytoplasm and organelles. They also typically have a
short lifespan. Our body’s bacteria will reproduce by di-
vision anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. So
like most of our cells, the precise makeup of our bacteria
is also constantly undergoing change.
But unlike our cells, bacteria are also living organ-
isms in themselves.
Research has found that bacteria, in fact, have
consciousness. They will communicate with each other
using quorum sensing along with biochemical secretion.
Indeed, bacteria also communicate with their host (our
bodies) utilizing cytokines and other biochemicals. In
this way, they can stimulate the body’s immune system
and also help regulate the body’s moods and bio-
rhythms.
In fact, our body cannot survive without these
bacteria. They are an important part of the body.
Therefore, not only can we conclude that the
human body is constantly undergoing cellular and mo-
lecular/atomic change: We can also state with scientific
integrity that the human organism is a significant host
for numerous other organisms. Thus it might be com-
pared to a planet of sorts – just as the earth hosts and
supports so many organisms.
This human organism – constantly undergoing
cellular, molecular, atomic and microbiological change –

20
is thus not the solid, stable structure we might imagine it
to be.
Rather, it is a fluid structure. It is a complex recy-
cling mechanism that supports life. Not only does it
support trillions of microorganisms. This mechanism
supports a living entity within – a living being separate
from the body’s ever-changing cells, molecules, atoms
and bacteria.
This is each of us – the spirit-person within – a life
force composed of an altogether different constitution.
Am I the brain?
One might propose that since we have yet to
transplant someone’s brain maybe we are the brain. Or
perhaps we are the neurons that make up the brain.
The famous neurosurgical experiments docu-
mented by Dr. Wilder Penfield gave many the first
glimpse into the brain. With the patient awake and able
to respond, Dr. Penfield was able to stimulate particular
memories in the patient along with other sensory im-
pressions by touching certain parts of the patient’s brain
during brain surgery.
These results and their many confirming experi-
ments left doctors with an impression that life must
reside in the brain since emotional memories were
stimulated with the electrode testing.
However, this assumption is disputed by later
brain research over the past fifty years on both humans
and animals. The assumption that the emotional self is
contained in the brain has been conflicted by the many
cases of a patient’s emotions and memory remaining
21
after parts of their brain had been removed. Some pa-
tients that had a majority of the brain removed still
exhibited emotions and memory.
Furthermore, there are a few documented cases
where people have had little in the way of brains, yet
they still had memories and cognition.
But wait, isn’t the brain the location of the storage
of all of these memories and impressions?
Doesn’t brain function and memory move around?
The research of Dr. Karl Lashley in the 1920s tried
to find what he called the “engram” – or specific loca-
tions where different types of memories are stored.
Surprisingly, he found that different people and animals
store similar types of memories in different places in-
stead of in the same place. He concluded that memories
can be stored throughout the brain – not just in selected
locations.
This was also the conclusion of Dr. Penfield, men-
tioned above. During his neural stimulation research, Dr.
Penfield found once again that different memories
could be triggered from different places in different
people.
Neural stimulation triggers were often found
among the temporal lobes – located on the each side of
the brain. But within these two lobes, the precise loca-
tion of each triggered memory was again found to often
be in different places – depending upon the person.
The problem this research produced was the as-
sumption that the brain was an organ with different
parts performing specific functions could not be sub-
22
stantiated. It was inconceivable that functions could be
moved to different parts of the brain if needed. So neu-
rologists had to go back to the drawing board.
This anomaly was eventually called neuroplastic-
ity. First it explained the ability of triggers for the recall of
memories potentially being located in slightly different
locations within the brain, depending upon the person.
Over the years, neuroplasticity was expanded to
encompass the ability of many brain functions to be lo-
cated in different parts of the brain: This is notable
among cases where part of the brain has been damaged
by stroke or trauma.
In these cases of stroke or brain trauma, often the
patient will recover motion or other neurological func-
tion even though the part of the brain that previously
controlled that is now dead. MRI research has found
those neurological functions have been moved to other
brain regions.
Neuroplasticity has also been seen in cases where
children have been born with little or no brain – yet sur-
prisingly have the ability to think and act as if they had a
normal brain. What neurologists have found is that those
functions commonly located in regions of normal brains
have moved to other locations. These include the re-
maining brainstem and spinal cord.
Can someone really survive with no brain?
Absolutely. This has been seen numerous times.
Recently, for example, a child was born in 2013 com-
pletely without a brain – only a brainstem. Aaron – the
child – just celebrated his second year of life and still is
23
without a brain. He recently said his first word,
“mummy.” Yet here is what the mother was told when
the child was born:
“A brain scan carried out on Aaron had revealed
only his brain stem had properly formed”
This is technically called holoprosencephaly – and
will occur once in about 5,000 births. Often the baby will
die, but then there are those babies who defy the pre-
sumption that a typical brain is required for life – and
continue to live – like Aaron.
But this understanding that the brain’s functions
can be relocated is not new. It has also been found
among many cases of hemidecortication – when a ma-
jor part of the brain – an entire cortex or even half the
brain – has been surgically removed.
It was assumed in early hemidecortication surger-
ies – done after accidents or other extreme situations –
that the brain would lose all the function of that cortex
or region removed. But surprisingly, in many cases, the
person eventually resumes normal activity. In these
cases, it is found that the functions of the brain previ-
ously stored in the removed area has now been stored
in the remaining portion of the brain tissues.
According to a substantial review done by Var-
gha-Khadem and Polkey (1992), numerous hemidecorti-
cation surgeries had to that point been conducted for a
number of disorders. In a majority of these cases, cogni-
tion and brain function continued uninterrupted.
A few cases even documented an improvement
in cognition. Additionally, in numerous cases of intracta-
24
ble seizures, where substantial parts of brain have been
damaged, substantial cognitive recovery resulted in 80
to 90% of the cases.
Who decides where brain functions get moved?
After many studies with MRI and other brain im-
aging, brain researchers have found that while memory
location storage might be organized using the pallium,
hippocampus or elsewhere, signaling from the frontal
cortex appears to determine more precisely which
memories will be kept and ultimately where they will be
kept and how they will be sorted.
The frontal cortex has been called the brain’s con-
trol mechanism. We might compare it to a control panel
or a keyboard on a computer.
So who is the operator of that control panel or
computer keyboard of the brain? Who is operating the
frontal cortex? Since memories and brain functions can
be moved, and are often stored differently by different
people, and the memories we keep handy are being de-
termined through the means of the frontal cortex, there
must be an operator behind the frontal cortex:
This is the living being: The spirit-person within.
Who remains when brain function moves?
This research described above illustrates that the
inner self is not reduced by brain damage or removal.
The same person remains after brain parts are removed.
The same personality remains. Many retain all their
memories. The majority of brain-damaged stroke pa-
tients go about living normal lives afterward as well.
25
Even in cases where memory, cognitive and/or
motor skills are affected by cerebrovascular stroke, the
person within is still present. Though handicapped, the
person remains unaffected by the brain damage.
Over the past few decades, we have seen tre-
mendous advances in science, as those who are unable
to speak – are able to speak by having their brain con-
nected to a computer with electrodes, allowing the
person to use the computer as a virtual communication
device. The computer is basically replacing part of the
brain that used to operate the mouth and larynx.
One of the main functions of the brain is to oper-
ate the body. The impulses that drive and coordinate
movement originates within the brain’s motor cortex.
Electrical signals are transmitted from the motor cortex
through the central nervous system and the nerves, di-
rectly to skeletal muscles. These impulses in turn drive
movement as the muscles are stimulated.
This is certainly a physiological system – a me-
chanical system. Can this mechanical system be
duplicated?
At Duke University, scientists have in essence, du-
plicated this technology. While certainly not as
sophisticated as the physical body, they have been able
to create machinery to produce similar effects. Re-
searchers have now been able to duplicate some of the
brain and CNS motor operations to enable those who
cannot walk or otherwise move to operate a sort of bi-
onic body.
They utilize a computer and relay system is set up
to relay information into what is called a “pneumatically
26
powered exoskeleton.” The person’s body is placed
within this exoskeleton – sort of like a robotic suit – to
help those whose bodies have become paralyzed or
otherwise not operational – so the exoskeleton does the
walking and moving with their paralyzed bodies placed
inside.
Using this device, part of the brain is connected
with electrodes to a computer, and the computer sends
signals to a sort of suit – the exoskeleton. As the person
desires to move, the person sends signals to the com-
puter and the computer sends signals to the suit
machinery, to move this leg or move that arm. So the
exoskeleton moves – just as the body is set up to move
– through electrical signals sent through a relay system
from a computer.
The contraption – the computer and relay system
combined with the exoskeleton suit – is duplicating the
operations of the motor cortex – which pushes electrical
signals from the brain to the parts of the body the per-
son wants to operate. Some are calling this the “bionic
brain.”
In other words, a machine has been designed to
duplicate what the motor cortex of the brain does. What
does this make the brain? A machine – a tool we use in
order to operate the body and navigate the physical
world. Just as the person using the exoskeleton can take
this device off and remain alive, the person who is oper-
ating the brain is separate from the brain.
So who is operating the brain? Just as we see in
the new exoskeleton and bionic brain that someone has
to be there to send the signals into the computer to op-
27
erate the exoskeleton, there must be someone within
who is operating the brain, enabling it to send signals
through our body, as well as compute things taken in by
the senses.
Who ultimately operates the brain?
Who is that person within who is operating the
brain? It is the nonmaterial self. It is you.
Personality and the self-perception are not brain-
dependent. Many organisms exert personality and per-
ception without even having a brain. Bacteria, for
example, do not have brains, yet they can identify and
memorize a wide variety of skills and events, including
what damaged or helped them (self-perception) in the
past. Other organisms such as plants, nematodes and
others maintain self-perception and even memory with-
out having brains or even central nervous systems.
MRI and CT brain scans on patients following
brain injuries or strokes have shown that particular func-
tions will often move from one part of the brain to
another after the functioning area was damaged.
We must therefore ask: Who or what is it that
moves these physical functions from one part of the
brain to another? Is the damaged brain area making this
decision? That would not make sense. Some other guid-
ing function must be orchestrating this move of the
function. What or who is guiding this process?
The retention of memory, emotion, and the mov-
ing of brain function from one part of the brain to
another is more evidence of a deeper mechanism; an
operator or driver within the body who is utilizing the
28
brain—rather than being the brain. The driver is the con-
tinuing element.
Physical structures – inclusive of memories and
emotions – continually undergo change, while the
driver remains, adapting to those changes.
The spirit-person – each of us – is of a substance
different from the physical body. This spirit-person is op-
erating the brain – just as a person might operate a
computer.
Am I the mind?
Like the body, the mind is a tool the self uses. It is
a subtle recording device which catalogs all of the input
from the senses.
Just consider all the images, impressions and con-
siderations we have deep within our minds. These
include all types of information derived from the senses:
Sounds and words from our ears; images from our eyes;
tactile information from our skin and so on. The mind
records faces we have seen and the events of our lives.
Anything the senses have taken in to the brain is re-
corded onto the mind.
The software of the brain is the mind. The mind
utilizes the brain’s capacity, but it is still more subtle than
the brain. The relationship between the mind and the
brain might be compared to software and hardware in a
computer. Software utilizes the hardware of the com-
puter to do its functions, but the software is still
independent of the computer.
While many insist that the mind is the brain, one
cannot find the mind in a brain. Many brains have been
29
dissected but the mind has never been found. Yet we
know the mind exists, because we use it every day. The
mind is more subtle than the brain. It lies within a differ-
ent range of matter – just as computer software lies
within another range of matter than the hardware of the
computer.
Who watches the mind?
Each of us can observe our mind. We can look
into our mind and see recently-viewed images, sounds,
or what something felt like.
We can, for example, observe something re-
corded onto the mind minutes, days and even years
after the senses brought in that sensual input. We can,
for example, remember a face when we see that face
again. We can remember when we saw that face before.
Or we can hear a song and remember years earlier
when we used to hear that song a lot. Who is recalling
that song?
Or we can listen to a song that we just heard sim-
ply by reflecting upon the recording in our mind. We
can also see the images of a movie we have just
watched, or a beautiful scene of nature we saw earlier in
the day.
In this way, we can observe what is in the mind at
any moment. We may not be able to consciously watch
everything the mind has recorded at any particular time.
But we can typically see what is at the top of our mind’s
stack.

30
Who is observing the images and sounds re-
corded into the mind? Who is watching these
memories?
If we were the mind, we could not watch the
mind.
For example, a person who watches a television
must be separate from the TV in order to watch it. The
observer must be separate from that which is observed.
Like the gross physical body, the mind is separate
from the self. The example of the mind being separate
from the self can be easily shown by two exercises that
illustrate the point above:
1) Pick any unique image – a unique or colorful
painting for example. Stare at it for a minute or two.
Now close your eyes. You should now see the image
painted on your mind.
2) Listen to some music. Now turn it off and sit in
a quiet room. You should now hear the music imprinted
onto your mind.
Can’t we change our minds?
Like a television or a radio, we can also turn the
mind’s station, and change the mind’s images. This can
be done easily by changing what is inputted into the
mind. We can thus change our mind.
The mind is a changeable, physical mechanism
the living being uses as a tool. We often will change our
mind. We will take in new information, and decide that
how we are looking at things is wrong. We can adjust
and change the way we consider things. We can change

31
our minds about something, or change our minds in
general.
Who is it that decides to change our mind about
something? Since we can change our mind, we cannot
be the mind.
Am I just a bunch of chemicals?
Over recent years, various researchers have pro-
posed that our identities are chemical. They have
proposed that emotions and personality are seated
within the chemicals – including hormones and neuro-
transmitters – that flow through the bloodstream, basal
cell network and the synapses of our nervous systems.
Could our identities simply be a mixture of com-
plex chemicals? A logical review of the scientific
evidence would indicate otherwise.
Emotional responses to environmental stimuli will
initiate any number of biochemical cascade pathways to
occur within the body. A cascade occurs when one
chemical release stimulates the release of another bio-
chemical, and that biochemical in turn stimulates the
release of another. The biochemicals in the cascade
might stimulate a particular cell, tissue or organ function.
With each cascade, there are initiating stimuli and sub-
sequent responses from various tissues and nerves.
Because neurologists and other researchers have
seen these biochemicals involved with emotional re-
sponse, some have proposed that these biochemicals
contain the emotion. They propose that chemicals such
as endorphins, dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, or

32
acetylcholine each contain the particular emotions they
reflect, and are thus the sources of the emotion.
They propose that these signaling biochemicals
connect with receptors positioned at the surface of the
cell; and the response by the cell is the emotion being
released from the chemical.
An example some have used is the famed opiate
receptor, linked with the cell’s reception of morphine or
endorphins, and the sensation of euph­oria. The idea is
that the feeling of euphoria is produced when the
ligands like endorphin connect with the receptor.
One problem with this speculation is that no two
organisms respond identically to the same chemical.
With opiates for example, some may hallucinate while
others may only respond casually. On the other hand,
some may have nightmarish experiences. If these struc-
turally identical neurochemicals contained the emotion,
why would each person respond differently to the same
chemical and dose?
Another major problem with this thesis is the ob-
server: Who is observing that the body is feeling
euphoria? Who observes the hallucinations created by
certain chemicals? Who observes the positive or nega-
tive sensations of the body? The fact is, without an
observer, there is no way to be able to view feelings. A
physical body that is experiencing a physical emotional
response with no observer would not allow the con-
sciousness to review the experience.
Yet, the very scientists that suggest we are chemi-
cals utilize observation and review to propose their

33
theories. By their own “evidence” they are proving there
is an observer.
If there were no observer – no self within – there
could be no discretion regarding an event created by
chemicals. There could be no judgment available as to
whether the experience was positive or negative. There
could be no available decision on whether the experi-
ence should be repeated or curtailed. There could be no
analysis or learning experience from our activities. These
require an observer of the experience.
The perception of pain – which involves chemi-
cals – may offer some clarity. In 2005, Dr. Ronald Melzack,
co-author of the widely-accepted gate control theory of
pain transmission, updated his theory of pain from a
simple gateway effect to one that accepted an observer
self within.
Melzack’s updated theory—which he calls the
body-self neuromatrix—explains that the consensus of
clinical research on acute pain, behavior and chronic
pain indicates an independent perceptual state of self;
observing and exchanging feedback and response with
the locations of injury.
Because doctors and researchers have found a
good portion of the pain response is unrelated to spe-
cific injury but rather a modification of sensory
experience, this neuromatrix indicates that pain requires
an interaction between the nervous system and what
Melzack calls the “self.”
In other words, pain requires two components: 1)
The sensory transmission of pain and 2) the observer or
experiencer of that pain.
34
Once that pain is experienced, there may also be
a feedback response from the experiencer. This feedback
may either be: 1) take action to remove the cause of the
pain; or 2) if there is no apparent cause then become
extra-sensitive to the pain until the cause is determined
(Baranauskas and Nistri 1998).
This increased sensory elevation leads to what is
called nociceptive pain—pain not appearing to have a
direct physical cause. Some might also refer to this type
of pain as being psychosomatic, although psychoso-
matic pain is often considered not real. Nociceptive pain
is considered real, but its cause is not obviously physi-
cally apparent.
Regardless of the name, this type of pain is very
difficult to understand and manage. This is especially
true for doctors and patients who deal with chronic pain
that appears unrelated to trauma or inflammation. Be-
cause the self naturally seeks pleasure, we would
propose that the current cause of that pain is always
real, from either a gross physical level or a more subtle
level.
Regardless of the level, the self experiencing the
pain would certainly be considered separate from the
pain, along with any biochemical messengers assisting
in its transmission. After all, how could the self “escape”
pain unless it was separate from the cause of the pain?
Because they increase the separation of the self from the
pain source, pain medications are a multi-billion dollar
business.
Since the biochemical transmission effectors such
as substance P among neurons are present during pain
35
responses, it is logical that these chemicals have a role in
the physical responses to emotions or memories. How-
ever, the proposal made by scientists such as Candace
Pert, Ph.D. that emotions exist within the chemicals is
not supported by logic or observation.
Researchers have observed an increase in bio-
chemicals like dopamine, serotonin, and various
endorphins in the bloodstream during feelings of love or
compassion. The question being raised is whether the
emotions stimulated the biochemicals or the biochemi-
cals stimulated the emotions.
The implications of proposing the limited view
that the emotion was created by the biochemicals are
many. This would be equivalent to saying love comes
from biochemicals. It would open the door to a murder
suspect pleading that his body’s chemical balance was
responsible for his committing the fatal crime.
Dopamine, serotonin and endorphins are circulat-
ing at heightened levels following activities such as
laughing eating, sex and post-traumatic stress. These
biochemicals are also circulating at other times, during
other emotions, albeit at different levels.
What comes first, the biochemical or the emo-
tion? Does the emotion drive the biochemical levels or
do the biochemicals drive the emotional response? To
break this down properly, we must separate the physio-
logical response to an optional response relating to
behavior and decision-making.
Yes, a biochemical reaction or ligand-receptor re-
sponse can stimulate a physiological response. But can it
dictate behavior? Could a hormone or neurotransmitter
36
ligand-receptor response force us to shoplift? In that
case, we should be able to find that certain biochemicals
were “shoplifting” chemicals. We’d be able to just reduce
their levels and forget about putting shoplifters in jail.
We’d also have to look at blood donors’ criminal
records before accepting their blood.
The reason we put shoplifters in jail is to teach
them that shoplifting is morally wrong. This is decision
for an observer—an inner self—who can observe the
body’s activities. Each of us can observe our activities
and steer them with decision-making.
We may not always be able to steer our physio-
logical responses, which also produce certain moods
within the brain and nerves. But we can observe those
moods and decide whether we are going to let them
control our activities. While more shoplifters are likely to
have bad moods, we aren’t forced to shoplift by a bad
mood.
If biochemicals create emotion, they would be
present only in and prior to particular emotions. Instead,
they are present during a variety of emotions. Again
physiological changes can be brought about by bio-
chemicals. But emotions stem from life: There is no
emotion left in a dead body.
Furthermore, if chemicals could contain emotions,
these emotional characteristics should exist in the
chemicals both inside and outside of the particular body
of the person experiencing the emotion. Illustrating this,
health workers regularly remove biochemicals (in the
form of body fluids such as blood, plasma and marrow)
from one subject and transfer them (or their compo-
37
nents) to other subjects. In none of these cases are emo-
tions transferred from one person to another.
Supposed “emotional biochemicals” do not retain
or display the emotions of their donor once they are
transferred to a new host. Certainly, if we found that
blood transfusions resulted in changes in personality or
emotions, blood transfusions would not be very popular.
Thus, the basis for a biochemical self fails thou-
sands of times a day around the world in hospitals that
transfuse blood.
This is not to mean that injected biochemicals
cannot stimulate a physical response within a new host,
which may or may not facilitate particular emotions to
be expressed. The organism receiving epinephrine or
another neurochemical may experience a physical re-
sponse consistent with the vanilla biochemical response
related to that particular molecular structure. Injected
adrenaline may produce a physical reaction of increased
heart rate, for example.
However, adrenaline drawn from one person dur-
ing a fearful response will not induce a recall of the
donor’s fears. The recipient’s physical response after the
injection will neither reflect the appropriate response
required for the donor’s particular fears.
Once the inner self responds to a particular sen-
sory input—often signaled through biochemical
reception—the unique emotional response of the self
stimulates particular biochemicals to translate and ex-
press the emotion. In other words, these biochemicals
help translate the emotional self’s response.

38
Just as current travels within an electrical wire,
neurotransmitters help transmit sensory feedback mes-
sages to the inner self. They also help transmit emotional
responses from the inner self. The self is the observer of
sensory input, and stimulates feedback responses utiliz-
ing some of the same biochemical transmission
pathways.
We must therefore conclude that there is some-
one inside who is either—directly or indirectly—
receiving and responding to the body’s neural transmis-
sions. Any response that proceeds with direction and
decision-making must come from a conscious source.
Otherwise we would simply be machines.
Fuel may ignite a spark in the cylinder of an
automobile engine causing combustion, which will
push the rods into motion, exerting force on the axel
cranks. Fuel is not the original stimulant, however. Nor
does fuel contain the ability to guide and steer the car.
Rather, there is a driver within the car who consciously
turns the key, presses the gas pedal and drives the car to
a particular destination using the steering wheel, accel-
erator, and brakes.
At the end of the day, the driver stimulates the
flow of fuel through the injection system by pressing the
gas pedal. The driver can also stop the flow of fuel and
the electricity running through the engine by turning off
the car.
When the driver of the body leaves at the time of
death, there are no emotions exhibited in the dead
body. Yet all the hormones, neurotransmitters, genes
and cells—all the biochemical ligands and receptors—
39
are still contained within the recently dead body. The
body supports no memory or emotional response be-
cause there is no longer a conscious driver present. The
conscious driver who drove the feedback and response
neurochemistry has left.
Emotions elicited from a response to an observa-
tion or other sensual stimuli would logically come from
someone separate from those stimuli. Because emotion
is integral with interpreting stimuli, an observer would
be necessary for that interpretation. Without an ob-
server, there could be no decision-making: There would
be no optional behavior.
This does not mean that all physiological re-
sponses require conscious interpretation and decision
from the self. For example, should we touch the burner
of a stove there is programming in place within the neu-
ral network to instantly react by pulling the hand away.
This will often happen before the self has a chance to
make a decision. However, this programming does not
mean the self cannot engage in the decision to resist
that reaction of pulling away.
A firewalker may intentionally walk on the coals
despite his sympathetic system’s programmed response
to jump away onto the cool sand. These observations
lead us to understand that the self can be involved in
almost any sensory reception should there be determi-
nation and intention.
Most other stimuli requires the emotional self to
respond. Otherwise, no action would occur. This is
where intention comes in. Upon hearing the alarm in
the morning, the self could choose to do nothing—lying
40
in bed for the rest of the day. The self could also intend
to accomplish something that day, and rise to begin the
day’s activities. Ultimately, the self creates the intention
and impetus for those activities.
While biochemicals participate in the process of
conscious response and feedback, they are actually con-
ductors for electromag­netic wave transmissions. Once
sensual stimuli are pulsed to the neural network after
ligand reception, neurons produce specific information
waves. As we will discuss later in more depth, at any par-
ticular point in time, there are billions of brainwaves of
various frequencies moving through the brain. As the
different waves collide—or interfere—they create differ-
ent types of interference patterns.
The neurological research headed up by Dr.
Robert Knight at the University of California at Berkeley
and UC at San Francisco illustrated that the interaction
of these interference patterns together formulate a type
of informational transmission and mapping system.
This mapping system forms a type of observa-
tional screen from which the self can view incoming
waveform information. Using this mapping system, the
self can view the sensory information coming in from
sense organs, and combine these with the feedback
from the body, creating a total perception of ones envi-
ronment and situation.
As the self views these waveform interference pat-
tern images, we can respond with intention. Intention
from the self is typically translated through the prefron-
tal cortex and medial cortex to create brainwave
patterns that express the self’s response. These response
41
brainwave patterns are translated through the hypo-
thalamus and pituitary gland to produce master
hormones such as growth hormone, adrenocorticor-
tropic hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, oxytocin,
luteinizing hormone, and others, stimulating the cas-
cade of biochemicals that translate the response into
action. The brainwave transmissions also stimulate a par-
ticular nervous system response which activate
particular muscles, organs and other tissues.
The end result is a physical action combined with
certain biochemicals that stimulate a physical response.
We can illustrate this process more practically.
Let’s say that we heard from a friend that a relative was
hurt. The transmission brought through our body’s ears
will cause an emotional reaction from us as soon as we
hear it. The emotion was experienced following the au-
ral reception of the announcement. Upon interpreting
the aural reception, our inner self—we—react emo-
tion­ally. The particular response would depend upon
our personal connection with the relative. It is not
automatic. If they were a vicious, hurtful relative, we may
react far differently than if they we had established a
close personal relationship with them.
Assuming a close personal relationship, our inner
self may then initiate a physical response, producing
tears and a rush to the hospital to be with them. These
physical activities were stimulated by the emotional re-
sponse of our inner self.
The emotional response and subsequent activities
of the body originate from a conscious individual. Be-
cause there must be an initiator for the production of
42
the biochemicals that produce an emotional response,
there is ultimately a source for the response that is in-
visible.
This is the same source that disappears at the
time of death – the invisible difference between the life
of the body and the death of the body is the individual
spiritual self.
Am I DNA?
A newer version of biochemical identity put forth
by some doctors and scientists over the last few decades
is the notion that the self is the genetic information—or
the genome—of the body.
This is largely presumed because the genetic mat-
ter of some parts of the brain – those brain cells that live
longer – may be retained throughout our lifetime. But
even so, the vast majority of the atoms that make up our
DNA throughout our body are replaced within a few
years.
The larger assumption that we are DNA is buried
within the theory that genes accidentally evolved from
chemicals. The gene evolution theory supposes that
genes, and life itself, spontaneously arose from a random
pool of chemicals. This theory requires a process called
spontaneous generation. Unlikely as it seems, the spon-
taneous generation of life theory was debated by
scientists for hundreds of years, as they observed life
seemingly growing from barren flasks.
Finally, Dr. Louis Pasteur refuted spontaneous
generation by illustrating that this growth was due to

43
the presence of tiny microorganisms invisible to the na-
ked eye.
For many decades this assumption of spontane-
ous generation has continued nonetheless. And many
researchers have attempted to create life from ‘primor-
dial’ chemicals—all without success.
Could life have randomly arisen from chemicals?
To analyze the likelihood of even one typical pro-
tein molecule to have been randomly developed, we
can reference Nobel prize winner Dr. Francis Crick’s
statements in his book Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature.
Here Dr. Crick calculates that the chance of even one
conservative protein molecule of two hundred amino
acids coming into existence is one chance in 10260 —
the number one with two hundred and sixty zeros be-
hind it.
Dr. Crick also states this would be analogous to a
billion monkeys typing onto a billion typewriters and
somehow typing one sonnet of Shakespeare.
The chance of a 1,000-nucleotide chain DNA
molecule forming accidentally is more remote. Both Dr.
Dawson and Dr. Crick agree with this. Lester Smith
(1975) calculated the probability as about one in 10600.
The probability of genetic mutations accidentally
leading to a new species is even more remote. Dr. Lee
Spetner (1998) calculates that a new species (one posi-
tive mutation step) would have a probability of 2.7 x 10-
2739 , (that is a probability of it not happening, of 2.7
with 2,739 zeros after it) using Stebbins’ (1966) estima-

44
tion that five hundred intermediate mutations would be
required to establish one positive mutation step.
This fantastic assumption that chemicals sponta-
neously created genes and life also assumes that those
chemicals combined then somehow developed the de-
sire to survive. In other words, accidental chemical
combinations somehow developed the intention to im-
prove their chances of survival.
Have we ever observed chemicals desiring sur-
vival? Chemicals simply do not display this characteristic.
No scientist has ever found the intent to survive outside
of a living organism. No chemical desires survival unless
part of a living organism—hence the name biochemi-
cals (bio = life). Chemicals may react and form various
substances, and certainly will change structure when
heated or cooled.
What about the desire to survive?
The desire to survive is connected to the desire to
improve survival factors and eliminate threats to survival.
The need to improve survival requires that someone
values survival over death. Otherwise, we would be talk-
ing about a group of unconscious chemicals somehow
beginning to value their existence.
Chemicals that value their own existence means
that the chemicals could somehow recognize a differ-
ence between living chemicals and dead chemicals. This
in turn requires that chemicals have awareness, because
the desire to survive requires an awareness of self-
existence. It also requires a fear of death: Could a chemi-
cal become afraid to die?
45
In order to desire survival, a living organism must
be aware that it is alive. A living organism must be able
to differentiate itself from a dead batch of chemicals. If
there is no distinction between life and death, why avoid
death? Why desire life without a distinction between
living and nonliving chemicals? Certainly it would be
easier for a batch of chemicals to remain dead than to
have to struggle for survival in the midst of all the envi-
ronmental challenges to staying alive.
A small unicellular organism can be killed by so
many environmental challenges: Freezing, direct sun
exposure and any number of natural enemies. If there
were no distinction between living or dead chemicals,
the path of least resistance would be to remain dead
chemicals. Why try to survive without a benefit for liv-
ing? If there were no awareness and desire for survival in
the face of all this resistance, there would be no incen-
tive for genes to develop and evolve towards greater
complexity—the basic tenet of the evolutionary theory
and the ‘survival of the fittest.’
Put more simply, if a living entity could not distin-
guish itself from a nonliving entity, there would be no
urge to survive. Without the urge to survive, there would
be no motivating factor to encourage adaptation or mu-
tation. There would be no impetus to evolve because
survival is not valuable without an awareness of life.
Doesn’t selfishness require a self?
In his 1977 book “The Selfish Gene,” Dr. Robert
Dawkins proposed that genes themselves somehow

46
became not only selfish in their orientation, but also
somehow acted upon their selfishness.
Certainly, we can all agree that in order to be-
come “selfish,” there must be a “self.” Without a self, how
could something become selfish? How could there be
an orientation towards oneself without there being a
self?
We must also ask, logically, just who would be
available to recognize life in a chemical-based existence?
We are being asked to assume a batch of chemicals de-
veloped a state of consciousness, yet there is no
individual (self) present within those chemicals to be
conscious of being alive?
The incidental gene theory of life simply has no
logical basis. Genes cannot desire survival. They cannot
mutate, or make changes that promote survival without
an underlying conscious self present within the organ-
ism – a self who values life and wants to survive.
This living being must be aware that it is alive, and
must therefore value survival. Once the self values sur-
vival, it has a logical basis for making genetic and
physiological adjustments to better adapt to the envi-
ronment. Because the self is fundamentally alive when it
is inserted into a temporary physical body, it naturally
strives to survive within that organism.
Admittedly, the total mapping of the genome
and further mapping of the individual allele locations
within codons—their haplotypes and collectively, their
hapmaps—reveals a complexity of design beyond our
current understanding. But what could be driving that
complexity?
47
Over the past three decades, tremendous re-
search efforts have gone into creating statistical models
to match the physical traits of humans and other organ-
isms with particular gene sequences – called genomes.
As a result, thousands of species genomes have been
tabulated and connected with physical characteristics.
In addition, different diseases and traits have been
connected to certain sequences. Although these efforts
are laudable, science has unfortunately succumbed to a
blurring of the relationship between these genetic traits
and consciousness. The erroneous assumption is that
gene sequences—the particular arrangement of alleles
or nucleotides at different positions of the DNA mole-
cule—are the cause of those physical or behavioral
traits. That somehow, those sequences together make
up the identity of the conscious individual.
Is this a chicken-and-egg problem?
While some might call this a chicken-and-egg
problem, the solution is certainly clearer than this. This
assumption that the conscious self is a genetic hapmap
would be equivalent to saying a telephone is the source
of the voice we hear through the telephone speaker. It is
elementary: The voice on the line is coming from a re-
motely located person: A conscious entity utilizing that
phone.
We may not be able to see the person while we
are speaking with them, but we know a conscious per-
son is on the other side of the phone conversation
because we exchange personal communication as we
hear their live voice. In addition, the voice on the other
48
side responds to our statements with a clarity that can
only come from a conscious speaker.
There is no confusing the conscious speaker on
the other side of the phone line with the phone itself.
Thus there is no chicken-and-egg problem. There is a
conscious living being within the body that is commu-
nicating its inclinations through the body’s DNA.
Can DNA have consciousness?
The sequencing of genetic haplotypes indicates
its complex structure. This complex coding indicates
programmed design. As with any programming, there
must be an underlying consciousness designing this
structure. It is not logical to assume that a complex, well-
designed code with specific rules comes from a chaotic
and accidental design process. Just as we can connect
the lucid voice on the phone to a personal conscious-
ness, we can tie the sequencing of genes to a living,
conscious component, ultimately driving its design with
intention.
If we were to extract a DNA molecule from our
skin or body fluids, and place it onto the table or even in
a test tube, we will find there is no display of life. Just as
the body after death is lifeless, DNA or RNA molecules
extracted from a living body become lifeless. It should
also be clarified that RNA transcription and genetic mu-
tation is impossible without consciousness driving the
process.
We can certainly force a mutation upon an organ-
ism or its seed through the vehicle of a virus. Yet the
mutation will only become duplicated through an or-
49
ganism if there is a conscious living force present in that
organism. In other words, we cannot insert a mutated
gene into a dead body and see that mutation replicated
through the dead body.
Doesn’t personality come from consciousness?
The proposal that personality is determined by
genetic code is refuted by children who have inherited
genes from parents. Children are each born with distinct
personalities, talents and character traits not necessarily
portrayed in their parents or grandparents. While we are
quick to notice similar physical traits among our chil-
dren, each has their own character and personality.
We can easily observe children behaving signifi-
cantly different from their parents in similar situations.
We can also witness the many conflicts that arise be-
tween children and parents. We have also observed that
the extraordinary talents of child music geniuses or sa-
vants are not passed down genetically. In most musical
savant cases, the parents have relatively little or no mu-
sical gift whatsoever.
If personality and behavior were genetically
driven then genetically identical twins would live parallel
lives and have identical personalities. They would make
the same decisions, leading to identical histories.
This is not supported by the research. Twins live
dramatically unique and individual lives from each other.
Depending upon how much time they spend together,
they will make distinctly different choices in life as well.
In general, they display significantly unique and often
diverse behavior. Hur and Rushton (2007) studied 514
50
pairs of two to nine year old South Korean monozygotic
and dizygotic twins.
Their results indicated that 55% of the children’s
pro-social behavior related to genetic factors and 45%
was attributed to non-shared environmental behavior. It
should also be noted that shared environmental factors
could not be eliminated from the 55%, so this number
could well be higher if shared environments were re-
moved.
In another study from Quebec, Canada (Forget-
Dubois et al. 2007), an analysis of 292 mothers demon-
strated that maternal behavior only accounted for a 29%
genetic influence at 18 months and 25% at 30 months.
In a study of 200 African-American twins, including 97
identical pairs, genetics accounted for about 60% of the
variance in smoking (Whitfield et al. 2007).
In a study done at the Virginia Commonwealth
University’s Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Ge-
netics (Maes et al. 2007), a large sampling revealed that
individual behavior was only about 38-40% attributable
to genetics, while shared environment was 18-23% at-
tributable and unshared environmental influences were
attributable in 39-42%. These studies are also confirmed
by others, illustrating a large enough variance from
100% to indicate the presence of an individual personal-
ity within each twin.
Distinct identity despite genetic sameness is fur-
ther evidenced by the fact that identical twins will have
distinctly different fingerprints, irises and other physical
traits, despite their identical genetics. Many twins also
differ in handedness and specific talents. Researchers
51
have found that twins will often have significantly differ-
ent lifestyle choices later in life such as sexual
preference, drug abuse, and alcoholism.
For example, say two people purchase the exact
same make, model and year automobile at the same
time. Comparing the two cars in the future will reveal
the cars had vastly different engine lives and mileages.
They each had different types of breakdowns, and dif-
ferent problems. This is because each car was driven
differently. One was likely driven harder than the other
was. One was likely better taken care of than the other
was. They may have been the same make and model,
but each had different owners with different driving
habits.
Because twins have the same genetics—just as
the cars shared the same make and model—the unique
factors related to the eventual circumstances of their
lives stem from the fact that each body contains a dis-
tinct driver.
Because geneticists are not aware of the inner self,
they are now trying to resolve the inherent inconsisten-
cies of the gene theory with the developing theories of
epigenetics. In general, epigenetics is the acceptance of
additional factors (called marks or phenotypes) that af-
fect the switching on or switching off of genes.
This is also called gene expression. It was hy-
pothesized—and confirmed by research—that while
the DNA may or may not change within a species, there
are many physiological and anatomical changes that will
take place within a lifetime or within immediate genera-
tions that will reflect environmental changes.
52
These environmental changes are seen as turning
on or off these phenotypes, enabling changes in the
epigenome of the individual or family.
The concept of epigenetics was proposed by ge-
neticist Conrad Waddington in the early 1940s to explain
how environ­mental circumstances could effect genetic
expression.
In the 1980s, Dr. Lars Olov Bygren studied North-
ern Sweden populations that descended from families
who were isolated and subjected to periodic famines.
He found that children of famines had different genetic
traits than those who did not live through famine. Those
who lived through periodic feast and famine years died
sooner and had more cardiovascular disease.
As researchers have discovered more genetic
anomalies—such as the twins research mentioned ear-
lier—the concept of epigenetics has received increasing
attention.
The biochemical relationships between gene ex-
pressions have focused upon the action of DNA
methylation or histone regulation.
These biochemical messengers have been impli-
cated in the process of switching alleles on or off. The
assumption once again has been that the body’s switch-
ing systems are purely mechanical and robotic. There is
no intentional driver or observer present: Only a bio-
chemical machine that somehow acts with desire and
direction.
However, the very research by geneticists that
theoretically supported epigenetics also exposed a ma-
jor shortfall in the theory. In cruel mice experiments at
53
McGill University’s Douglas Hospital Research Center
(Szyf et al. 2008), epigenetic phenotypes could be
turned on and off within baby mice by the increased
nurturing from the mother. In other words, baby mice
receiving mama’s nurturing would switch on genes dif-
ferently than mice not receiving nurturing from mama
mouse.
Quite simply, this indicates the presence of an-
other influence upon the genetic switching of
epigenetic phenotypes: That of an exchange between
emotional personalities.
Nurturing is, in its very essence, the expression of
love between one living being and another. When a
mother communicates love through nurturing, the baby
receives that expression of love through those nurturing
activities. As the expression is received, there is a resona-
tion or hand-shaking between the two living beings.
That resonation produces an effect upon genetic
expression through the pathways of the brain, nervous
system and the body’s biochemicals, which bridge the
self with the body and its genes.
The inner self is connected to the body’s genes
through conscious decision-making. The research has
quite resoundingly connected environmental changes
with epigenetic changes. Yet many environmental
changes are the direct result of the decisions of the in-
ner self.
Let’s say we decided that we wanted to live in a
warm climate. Furthermore, we decided that a warm
climate was more important to us than having a good
job. So we packed up our belongings and moved to
54
Hawaii. We settled down in Hawaii and lived there for
the next twenty years. Over that time, our body will un-
dergo many adjustments as it accommodates the warm,
humid weather of Hawaii. Eventually, these environ-
mental conditions will affect the switching on and off of
certain genes, ultimately changing our genetic out-
come. One might be a longer life.
Epidemiological research has confirmed that Ha-
waii residents have the longest life expectancy among
other states in the U.S.—at 80 years—while the average
life expectancy of the rest of the country is 78.3 years.
Without our conscious decision to give up our job and
move to Hawaii, those physical (and epigenetic) results
would never have occurred.
The bottom line is that epigenetics research illus-
trates that we are not the genes: We are the living being
within these bodies, who can affect and change our
genes with our conscious choices.
Who is the observer?
Consider biofeedback. Sensors are attached to
various parts of the body to monitor physical responses
like heart rate, breathing, brainwaves, skin response,
muscle activity, and so on.
These sensors are connected to a computer,
which displays the various response levels onto a moni-
tor for the subject to see. The heart rate amplitude and
frequency readings will be displayed on the monitor in
waves, bars, and/or numbers.
With a little practice, most people—once they see
their heart rate with graphics clearly on the monitor—
55
can consciously lower their heart rate with intention.
Biofeedback has thus been used successfully to teach
people to alter physical functions such as muscle ten-
sion, hunger, physical stress, and other autonomic
functions.
Biofeedback training also gives the subject the
ability to directly control a variety of physical conditions,
including stomach cramps, muscle spasms, headaches,
and others—many known to be part of a biochemical
cascade.
But who is observing these functions and condi-
tions?
The reason why the biofeedback subject can learn
to control certain autonomic functions is that the self
ultimately exists outside of these bodily functions.
The self is the key participant who influences
physical functions. Once the person within intends to
make a change, the mind will facilitate the stimulation of
the biochemicals by the appropriate glands to produce
a physiological response.
This can take time, discipline and practice. Even
without biofeedback, a person can initiate various auto-
nomic responses. Most of us have experienced how a
physiological fear response may be initiated by simply
imagining a dangerous event or situation.
This happens every day in the professional world,
where executives stress over events that may never
happen. Stress increases the heart rate and stimulates
the release of cortisol and other stress-related biochemi-
cals.

56
Most of us have experienced being worried about
an event that may never happen. The resulting increase
in our heart rate indicates our body’s autonomic re-
sponse to an over-anxious self. This is called stress or
anxiety.
If the self can affect the body’s biochemistry with
anxiety, the self is separate from that biochemistry. Fur-
thermore, if the self can affect the body’s biochemistry
intentionally, there is no question of the self’s ability to
direct the body through intention.
The range of control the self has over the body is
limited by design. Still, there is no doubt that intention
initiates the sequencing of instructional signaling
through the body.
What about neurotransmitters?
This neurochemical process would be analogous
to a computer operator operating a computer. A com-
puter will tabulate, calculate, and memorize data. It will
display various graphics and perform various functions,
based upon the input or direction of the operator. The
software and hardware are designed in such a way to
coordinate computer functions very quickly and auto-
matically within particular limitations.
Regardless of the programming, the operator is
required. The computer operator must decide to turn on
the computer and must decide to input into the ma-
chine certain intentional commands to initiate the
computer’s programming functions.
In the same way, the physical body, with all of its
functional chemistry and various physical responses, is
57
ultimately being steered by the personality within: this is
the self, the living being—the operator of the body.
It is difficult sometimes to separate the self inside
the body from the various physical and biochemical op-
erations of the body. This is because the feedback-
response system bridges the self with the physical body.
Researchers have discovered that breastfeeding
not only gives the child better nourishment and a
stronger immune system, but also stimulates brain de-
velopment due to some of the biochemistry of breast
milk. This notion is consistent with the role various nutri-
ents or drugs have in altering moods and behavior.
Chemicals influence behavior because they not
only stimulate physical tissue response, but they also
give feedback to the self about what is going on in the
body. For example, the feeling of thirst is a neurochemi-
cal signal to the self that the body needs water. The
combination of hormonal, osmotic, ionic and nerve sig-
naling all integrate to stimulate osmoreceptors located
among brain tissue (such as the anteroventral third ven-
tricle wall).
Once stimulated, these receptors initiate signaling
through the hypothalamus, which converts into the
more subtle waveforms that connect with our mind.
Through the reciprocation of the mind, the self observes
this feedback, and responds by initiating action to find
some water.
A computer will also feed back to its operator in
the same way. The computer is not only designed to
perform operations based upon the input of the opera-
tor, but also its programming is designed to feed back to
58
the operator the results of those operations, signaling a
need for new responses from the operator.
This process is called a feedback loop. The body’s
feedback system is designed to respond to environ-
mental and physical changes around the anatomy. The
system is designed to signal to the self on how the body
is functioning.
This is one of the purposes for serotonin release in
the body: To feed back the presence of balance within
particular organs and tissue systems. A diet balanced in
proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, along with physiologi-
cal activities stimulate the conversion of tryptophan to
serotonin.
This conversion is also stimulated by such activi-
ties as relaxation, laughter, and exercise. These are all
positive activities for the body’s metabolism. This com-
bined state of balance and activity results in a normal
flow of serotonin, which feeds back through the brain’s
translation systems to the self the presence of physio-
logical balance among certain parts of the body.
Pain, on the other hand, indicates quite the oppo-
site: Some imbalance exists somewhere. Pain feeds back
to the operator the need for an adjustment among cer-
tain functions or activities. This necessary adjustment
could be to the diet, fluid intake, sitting posture, lack of
exercise, or perhaps an infection of some sort. Chronic
pain indicates an unresolved lack of balance in the body,
requiring an appropriate response to fix the issue.

59
Isn’t this like an instrument panel?
Just as an instrument panel on an automobile in-
forms the driver of the running condition of car, we can
monitor the condition of our body through these and
other neurochemical feedback mechanisms. Just as the
car driver slows down when the speedometer shows the
car is over the speed limit, the self—directly through
conscious control or indirectly through the autonomic
system—can make the needed adjustment when the
body’s feedback systems indicate a problem.
Should we misidentify ourselves as the body, we
might confuse positive feedback mechanisms as pleas-
ure. This miscon­ception leads us to attempt to
manipulate our body’s biofeedback mechanisms.
Eating, for example, will stimulate neurochemicals
such as serotonin, dopamine and leptin when there is a
balance of nutrition and energy. Another example is
how our taste buds feed back positive neural signals
when we eat something sweet or fatty. These are both
positive responses to the body achieving its basic fuels.
In an effort to gain pleasure from these positive
responses, many of us continue to eat long after the
body has enough for its fuel. An ongoing attempt to be-
come fulfilled through eating can result in obesity,
frustration, and depression. In the same way, the car
driver does not get full when he fills the car’s fuel tank.
Thus, the answer to obesity is the realization of this con-
flict between the body’s fulfillment and the fulfillment of
the self.

60
“Happiness resides not in possessions and not in
gold; the feeling of happiness dwells in the soul.”
– Democritus (“The father of science,” 4th
century, B.C.)
What is clinical death?
Evidence concluding our identity as nonphysical
has been presented by a number of respected research-
ers over the past four decades. With the advent of
resuscitation and medical life-support technologies has
come a proliferation of patients whose bodies have
clinically died prior to resuscitation.
Author and researcher Dr. Raymond Moody pio-
neered this research in the 1960s, and thus introduced
us to the Near Death Experience (or NDE). Dr. Moody
presented hundreds of cases documenting common
experiences among patients declared clinically dead in a
clinical setting.
Dr. Moody’s research reviewed a cross-section of
thousands of cases of patients with a variety of religious
and socio-economic backgrounds. Dr. Moody discov-
ered a common experience:
After separating from the body, the self floats
above it, viewing the various resuscitation efforts taking
place on the body. This is often followed by the self re-
motely traveling to and viewing loved ones. Often
traveling at the speed of thought to their homes or loca-
tions, the self often tried in vain to communicate with
their loved one.
Afterward, many subjects detailed being drawn
into a darkened tunnel with a bright light at the end. At
61
the end of the tunnel, many either entered or saw a daz-
zling light or personality. Many reviewed their lives in an
instant. Many went on to meet with this personality. In
many cases, the personality indicated it was not “their
time yet.” Following this, many instantly returned to their
body.
This usually coincided with the revival of the
body. While specific experiences were often different,
most NDE subjects experienced separation from their
physical body and felt, at the very least, peaceful (Moody
1975). Naturally, this research had its skeptics. A few
questioned Dr. Moody’s protocols, which included pa-
tient selection and interview techniques.
This gap was quickly filled by Kenneth Ring, Ph.D.
In a well-received peer-reviewed book published in
1985, Dr. Ring randomly selected 101 patients who had
experienced an NDE. Dr. Moody’s patients were col-
lected as their data were presented to him. This offered
some but not complete randomness.
By contrast, the 101 patients studied by Dr. Ring
were chosen randomly to eliminate any bias, imagina-
tion, hallucination, inconsistency, and other elements
possibly affecting the objectivity of their after-death ex-
perience. Of the 101 subjects, a third reported out-of-
body experiences, and a quarter reported entering the
darkness or tunnel with the light at the end. About 60%
reported at least a positive, peaceful experience.
Those NDE subjects whose death was the result of
a suicide attempt experienced no tunnel with light. The
suicide NDEs in this study experienced a “murky dark-

62
ness,” after feeling separated from their body, but they
did not proceed any further (Ring 1985).
Dr. Ring’s findings—though not in the exact same
percentages—were substantiated by professor of medi-
cine and cardiologist Michael Sabom, M.D. in a 1982
work called Recollections of Death: A Medical Investiga-
tion. There have been other investigations confirming
these experiences (Blackmore 1996).
Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross documents researching
some twenty thousand cases of near-death in her 1991
book On Life After Death, confirming the same primary
conclusions of the research done by Sabom, Moody and
Ring. Upon review of the other various explanations, it
appears unlikely any of the possible physical causes
could suitably explain the NDE—except that the self is
not the body.
The sheer cross-section of people with this same
experience provides too much variance to provide any
other rational explanation. The common NDE experi-
ences regardless of the level of religious reverence,
expectation levels, drug-administration, knowledge of
NDE and brain or biochemical stimulation certainly pro-
vides few alternatives.
Additionally, when both Moody and Sabom
tested the observations of NDE out-of-body observa-
tions with hospital staff, they almost without exception
confirmed the observations the NDE subjects made
from outside of a body clinically unconscious.
This research continues to this day, with many
modern studies confirming the earlier findings of
Moody, Ring, Sabom, Kubler-Ross and others. Physician
63
Dr. Sam Parnia who is director of resuscitation research
at Stony Brook University.
In one of these studies, Dr. Parnia and his col-
leagues interviewed 140 survivors of cardiac arrest
whose bodies had clinically died, only to be revived later.
Out of these, 55 described that they experienced aware-
ness during the time their bodies were clinically dead. In
addition, 13 felt themselves separate from their physical
bodies. Seven saw a bright light; 22 people experienced
peacefulness; nine felt joy; and some of the patients re-
called negative experiences after their body physically
died.
There are many experiences that illustrate evi-
dence the person actually left their physical body. For
example:
In an Austin, Texas hospital, Tricia Baker clinically
died during surgery after a head-on collision. When in-
terviewed after being revived, she recalled floating up to
the ceiling, looking down upon her body. She watched
the heart monitor go flatline.
Then she left the room and traveled down the
hall. She saw her grieving stepfather purchase a particu-
lar candy bar from a vending machine – a whim from
stress that he hadn’t told anyone else about until he was
questioned about following Tricia’s interview (Henig
2016).
How could she have seen her stepfather purchase
the candy bar while her body lay clinically dead in the
surgery room?
There are many, many experiences just like this.
While unconscious and with eyes closed these patients
64
could hardly be expected to observe such events—
unless they left their physical bodies.
Skeptical doctors have suggested some sort of
paranormal or hallucinogenic experience. We must ask
those skeptics: How logical is it to accept the notion of a
paranormal experience but not accept an out-of-body
observation? Especially when the out-of-body observa-
tion is substantiated with objective corroborated
experiences?
The most logical and scientific approach – given
not only the evidence here but the other evidence re-
ferred to – that there exists within the body a spiritual
self: An entity separate from the body, who departs the
body at the time of death.
What is the soul?
Empirical and clinical evidence reveals the exis-
tence of a transcendental inner self operating the body.
Why do we say “transcendental?” If the self were not
transcendental to the physical plane we would be able
to see it. We would be able to measure it with physical
quantifications.
As it is, we can only see it in the animation of the
body. We can only see it through the emotions that are
expressed through the body. We can only see it in the
decision-making and objectives that push the body to
act one way or another. It is, in fact, the inner self’s tran-
scendental nature that has caused modern science to
completely ignore the existence of the self.
The inner self is the source of personality and life,
which the body expresses through physical activity over
65
its lifetime. There is energy, personality and movement
in a living body prior to death. This is followed by a lack
of movement, personality and energy after the death of
the body. This means that the source of the energy and
personality must leave the body at death.
Furthermore, contrary to the proposals of many,
since each personality is unique and different from eve-
ryone else, each inner self must also be an independent,
individual being. We are not, despite the seductiveness
of such a statement, “all one.”
Consistent with the ancient teachings of all major
religions, the ancient philosophers, and the vast majority
of western scientists prior to the emergence of the acci-
dental chemical life theory, we can now scientifically and
empirically document the existence of a unique individ-
ual being, transcendental to the gross physical plane.
Plato, Socrates and most of the ancient Greek phi-
losophers referred to this inner self as the soul. The
translation is thought to originate with Aristotle, who
described the self with the Latin telos.
Rather than being a vague spirit-like organ, telos
translates to a personality with purpose, will, and charac-
ter. In this context, we would emphasize that each of us
does not possess a soul: each of us is a soul—accessing
the physical plane through a temporary physical body.
We conclude with a comment made by the fif-
teenth-century physician, Paracelsus:
“The power to see does not come from the eye,
the power to hear does not come from the ear,
nor the power to feel from the nerves; but it is
66
the spirit of man that sees through the eye, hears
with the ear, and feels by means of the nerves.
Wisdom and reason and thought are not
contained in the brain, but belong to the
invisible spirit which feels through the heart and
thinks by means of the brain.”
Did Jesus teach about the soul?
Absolutely. Jesus repeatedly taught this lesson
within his teachings and activities.
Here are but a few of the many statements Jesus
made regarding our identity as spirit and not the physi-
cal body:
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but
cannot kill the soul.” (Matt. 10:28 NIV)
“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Matt.
26:41 and Mark 14:38 NIV)
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life,
what you will eat or drink; or about your body,
what you will wear. (Matt. 6:25 and Luke 12:22
NIV)
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
The words I have spoken to you—they are full of
the Spirit and life.” (John 6:63 NIV)
“Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives
birth to spirit.” (John 3:6 NIV)
Jesus himself is also identified as spirit – and not
his physical body:

67
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into
your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had
said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46 NIV)
Jesus’ followers also understood that Jesus left his
physical body at the time of death:
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud
voice, he gave up his spirit. (Matt. 27:41 NIV)
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is
finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave
up his spirit. (John 19:30 NIV)
Thus the scriptures clearly identify that Jesus’
physical body died, as his spirit – himself – left the physi-
cal body. This is precisely what clinical death research
has revealed, and what simple observation reveals – that
the physical body becomes lifeless at the time of death
because the spirit-person has left the body.
Jesus’ disciples also taught this, as James stated:
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without deeds is dead. (James 2:26 NIV)
Jesus also taught that the Supreme Being – is
spiritual:
“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in
the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
Do I have a soul – or am I a soul?
Some refer to the self as the soul. If so, we would
emphasize that each of us does not possess a soul: we
each are a soul. That being said, some will also refer to

68
the soul as one’s level of morality or even one’s mission.
As we seek not to confuse, we refer to the self as the liv-
ing being.
Jesus and other spiritual teachers have identified
that we are not these physical bodies. Some have called
the nonphysical self “spirit” – as Jesus did. Some have
also called the nonphysical self “soul” – as Jesus also did.
We also may refer to the self as the transcendental
living being to emphasize that the living being is not
within the physical or material plane. Rather the living
being is accessing the physical plane.
The word “spiritual” can also be misunderstood.
Spirit can be confused with the subtle physical world of
ghosts, which are living beings who are still embodied
within the mind and subtle physical layers, yet without
gross physical bodies.
For clarity, the word “transcendental” indicates the
dimension transcending these gross and subtle physical
layers of the physical world: That place where we are
actually ourselves.
In the preceding sections we have illustrated the
science and logic to conclude the existence of the tran-
scendental living being. We are each such a living being,
existing outside of the physical dimension, and distin-
guishable from the physical components of the body
and mind.
The physical organism – a living physical body – is
only alive when it has been injected with a transcenden-
tal living being. The physical organism is thus simply a
physical body animated by this living being from within.

69
This living being cannot be seen by the physical
eyes or other sense organs because it is made of a dif-
ferent substance: A substance of the spiritual dimension.
Am I ultimately nothing or everything?
Many philosophers speculate that after death, the
living being either fades into “nothingness,” or expands
into “everything.” This philosophy proposes that the liv-
ing being does not have an individual identity after
death: Instead, the individual person or living being sim-
ply vanishes and evaporates into space.
Merging into “nothingness” — the void — and
merging into “everything” — sometimes referred to as
the white light — are basically the same proposition. In
either case, there is no individuality. There is no separate
existence of the living being in either of these scenarios.
To this we can offer the simple observation that
individuals are born with unique and distinct personali-
ties—some with even special talents such as being a
musical or other gifted genius—pointing to an individ-
ual existence prior to birth. If a person existed as an
individual before birth, does it make sense that a person
would lose individuality after death?
The living being is the source of our personality,
our feelings, emotions, desires, the ability to love, and
the desire to be loved. Each of us is a separate, active
living being.
Why would we exist now as separate beings, only
to evaporate into everything/nothing? What would the
purpose of this folly be?

70
Some propose that we not only merge into “eve-
rything” – but we are God. We are the Supreme Being
and everything around us is our creation.
Such a notion can be disproved immediately. If
you are God then why do I disagree with you? How can
you state you are God yet you cannot even convince me
that you are God? Furthermore, why can you not control
time? Or your body’s aging? Or death? Or others?
In fact, you cannot possibly be God. If you were,
then things have gotten out of your control, and such a
notion disproves the notion that you are God.
With regard to becoming nothing at the time of
death, since you have maintained a steady active exis-
tence throughout many years of a changing physical
body. The death of the body will not affect your will to
survive and prosper— the desire to love and exchange
love.
Each of us is characterized by activity and will. Ac-
tively willing and thus making choices is the key
distinction between living and dead matter.
And we are each distinct from each other. We
each have different wills. We each make different
choices. Therefore, neither are we one in the sense of
being either nothing or everything.
The destination of our journey is our choice. We
have the freedom to choose. Our physical body is a tool
to accomplish the destination of our choice.
Regardless of whether we are conscious of our
choices, those of us living beings in the human form
have conscious tools to work with at the moment. Our
consciousness has advanced and evolved. We can now
71
make spiritual choices. This means we are each spiritual
individuals. We are each a child of God, temporarily oc-
cupying a physical body.

72
Question Two:
Why am I here?
We were created by the Supreme Being to love
and serve Him. This means that our natural position in
the spiritual realm is God’s loving servitor. By nature, we
are satisfied by giving God enjoyment.
Yet because love requires freedom, we also have
been given the freedom to seek God’s position of being
the enjoyer. Should we become jealous of His enjoy-
ment, our ability to love Him and serve Him is replaced
by self-centeredness.
Such a scenario is expressed in the Book of Gene-
sis:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the
wild animals the LORD God had made. He said
to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not
eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman
said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the
trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must
not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of
the garden, and you must not touch it, or you
will die.’” “You will not surely die,” the serpent
said to the woman. “For God knows that when
you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you
will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
(Genesis 3:1-5 NIV)

73
When the serpent says, “and you will be like God,”
he is appealing to the desire to be like God. The desire to
be “God-like.”
Since we are not God – and there is only one God
– the desire to be “like God” means becoming envious of
God.
Typically, the children of God within the spiritual
realm focus their lives upon pleasing the Supreme Be-
ing. They do not experience self-centeredness or envy,
because they are only focused upon God’s enjoyment.
As a result, they experience spiritual pleasure – this is the
pleasure that is connected to love.
But because God also gave us the independence
to desire to be “God-like,” we have the option to reject
our natural position of being a servant of God. Because
love requires freedom – and God wants our love – we
have been given the freedom to reject being His servant
of seek His position.
Because we now seek His position, we subject
ourselves to self-centered pleasure and its natural con-
sequence, pain. Yes, one who seeks God’s position must
experience the results of a self-centered existence. This
means fleeting flashes of pleasure combined with pain.
Once we became envious of God, there was no
place for us in the spiritual realm. We were banished
from the spiritual realm due to our self-centered desires.
This is also communicated in Genesis:
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden
of Eden to work the ground from which he had
been taken. (Genesis 3:23 NIV)
74
The “Garden of Eden” is a symbolic representation
of the spiritual realm. And the phrase, “the ground from
which he had been taken,” refers to the fact that the
physical body is derived from the physical world. Our
temporary physical body is an earthly body.
We also find another clear statement that we
(symbolized by Adam and Eve) were given physical bod-
ies for our fall into the material world:
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam
and his wife and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21
NIV)
What are these “garments of skin?” These physical
bodies – which cover our spirit-person just as clothes
cover the body – are like garments. We are each covered
by these physical bodies.
And it so happens that these “garments” – the
physical body – that cover us are made of skin.
Our purpose for taking on a physical body was
that God understood our desire to be God-like. He knew
that we wanted to attempt to be the enjoyer. He saw
that we developed self-centered desires. So He gave us
a physical body so that we could attempt to enjoy in a
self-centered fashion.
These desires manifest into our taking on a par-
ticular type of temporary physical body. Our physical
bodies are designed, in other words, to execute our de-
sire for self-centered enjoyment and independence from
God. Our bodies were designed for us to play out our
desires to be in God’s position.

75
This is why everyone around us, including us,
strives to achieve self-centered desires. Each of us de-
sires attention. We want others to love us. We want
others to admire us. We want others to care about us.
Ultimately, we want others to serve us.
We can see this in its purity in a baby. The baby
enters the world crying for comfort, and love. The baby
cries to be held; to be fed; to be rocked and cuddled.
When the baby is left alone for awhile, it will cry harder.
It will scream bloody murder, only to calm down once it
is being fed or nursed.
Do babies come into the world ready to give any-
thing back to the mother who carried them for nine
months and then labored for two days before? No. The
baby wants more. More food. More attention. Then later
is it more toys. Then we want the other kids to respect
us. We want our peers to like us, and give us respect. We
also want bigger toys. And later, we want to enjoy sex.
As we grow older, our self-centeredness expands.
We want to make lots of money. We want a beautiful
husband or wife. We want a big job, a big house and we
want to drive a big car.
When these do not satisfy us, we want a family.
We want kids. We want to create little people who will
look up to us and love us. Then we want to teach our
little creations our great wisdom, so they can do want
we want them to do.
Then later on we want to retire. We want to sit
back and enjoy life. We want to take a cruise. We want
our grandchildren to come around to love us and serve
us.
76
This is how most of us see becoming happy here
in this world. And what is all this? This is the desire to be
like God. We want to be loved, be served, own stuff, cre-
ate people and be the king of our own little kingdom.
This is God’s position. And this is what we want.
None of the people living in the physical world
want to serve. No one wants to be a servant. We all want
to be masters. We all want to rule over others. This is our
disease, and this is why we were sent here to this physi-
cal world. This is why we were sent away from God. So
we could try to enjoy life.
We choose self-centeredness over our natural po-
sition of God’s loving servant. When we did this, we
were escorted out of the spiritual world. We lost the
taste for our loving relationship with God.
Once we became envious of God – we developed
a new taste: A taste for self-centeredness. We tasted
what it was like to feel like a king. We tasted what it
would be like to be the center of the universe.
Of course, we never became the center of the
universe. But we became the center of our universe.
But once we developed this taste of self-
centeredness, we were hooked. We wanted more.
That’s what self-centeredness brings. It brings
hope that what is just around the corner will satisfy me.
This is what lust is: The desire for something that
we do not yet have. Lust is consuming. We are con-
sumed by lust because it never ends.

77
The righteousness of the upright delivers them,
but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires.
(Proverbs 11:6 NIV)
First we want something we don’t yet have.
Should we get it, it never satisfies us. All we can think of
is getting something else. We must have more, and
more. Desires never stop and say, “Okay, I have what I
wanted, now I am happy.”
Rather, one desire sparks another. And another.
For this reason, desires result in a string of new desires.
Our desires were initially the product of envy. See-
ing the Supreme Being enjoy in a particular way, and
becoming envious of the Supreme Being.
Our envy of the Supreme Being not only seeded
our desires. It also separated us from the Supreme Being.
It formed a break in our relationship with God.
Let’s say that we had a childhood friend for many
years, and suddenly found ourselves competing with
that friend to be captain of a sports team.
Then let’s say that we became team captain, and
our friend didn’t. They then become jealous that we be-
came captain and they didn’t. Could we continue our
childhood friendship as it was? No. That jealousy would
interfere with our friendship. Our friendship as it was
would be dissolved by the jealousy.
It is the same with God and each of us – the living
beings He created. Once we become envious of God’s
position, we thereby give up our position of one of
God’s loving servants and playmates within the spiritual
realm.

78
This caused us to fall from the spiritual realm and
take on a physical body in the physical world. Basically,
we lost our seat in heaven and have fallen to earth.
We “landed” in the physical world by taking on a
physical body. We were given a body that allowed us to
exercise the desires we gained following our becoming
envious of God.
But the body we inherited isn’t us.
This is critical because in the physical world, these
bodies are temporary. They are born, get old and then
die. They are temporary vehicles from which we attempt
to play God’s role – focusing on our own pleasure and
trying to have others love us and worship us.
Our spiritual selves, however, are eternal. In the
spiritual realm we never get old. We never die. In the
spiritual world we are our bodies. In the physical world,
we are not our bodies. We operate them, just as a driver
operates a car.
We can only be truly happy acting within our
natural position. Assuming we are cleansed of envious-
ness, we can become happy by exchanging love with
God and love with all of God’s other children.
But cleansing that enviousness is quite a chore. It
doesn’t take place over night.
We can start by understanding that loving God is
our natural position. We can see inside of us and as we
look around at others, and see that everyone including
us is seeking love and to be loved.
Yet we are never satisfied with the type of love we
find in the physical world, because all the other citizens
of the physical world are also trying to be in God’s posi-
79
tion. So we struggle and compete with each other for
position and attention. We struggle for God’s position, in
other words.
And what little love exists within this world is
predicated upon our temporary physical bodies. We
typically love only those who have bodies within our
body’s family, or those who marry our bodies, or those
who somehow prove their devotion to us. Otherwise,
we don’t love others, and others don’t love us. This is not
really love, because it is conditional.
Real love is unconditional. When someone really
loves another, it doesn’t matter what body they have on
or what family their body comes from. It doesn’t matter
if the person hates them. Real love is unconditional.
This is the kind of love we are desperate for. This is
the type of love that comes from the Supreme Being,
and those within the spiritual world who love God un-
conditionally – they also love others unconditionally. It is
like an infection: Those in the spiritual realm are all in-
fected with spiritual love.
But once we decide that we want more for our-
selves – we want what God has – it all dissolves. In an
instant, we find ourselves fallen from the spiritual realm,
and sucked inside of a physical body’s sperm to be fertil-
ized. Then the body develops around us, and we begin
to identify with a temporary physical body, as we seek to
use it for achieving our self-centered goals.
We abandoned our love for God and became
jealous of Him – so we were pushed out of the spiritual
realm.

80
Question Three:
What is our purpose for existing?
The Supreme Being created each of us. In our
pure state, each of us is a spiritual being with a spiritual
form, personality and character. We are each a child of
God in the purest sense. We each are a separated part
and parcel of the Supreme Person.
God created each of us to exchange a relationship
with Him. We are each one of God’s playmates, so to
speak. He created each of us in order to enjoy a particu-
lar loving relationship with.
Just consider – what would you do if you were all
alone on a desert island, cut off from the outside world.
And you had the ability to reproduce by yourself. Most
certainly, you would create some children, right? You
would create children that you could raise and love –
who would also love you back, right? Why would you
want to live on that deserted island with no one?
Yes, this makes total sense to us. But why should
God be like us? He is – but not that He is like us. We are
like Him. We were each created by Him and thus each
have a little piece of Him. This is why each of us needs
relationships – because we come from a relationship
with God. And God enjoys relationships.
Yes, God enjoys loving relationships, but that love
must be freely given. What if God simply created us to
love Him but we had no choice but to love Him? Would
that even be love? No.

81
Today, we can create robots that will do whatever
we want them to do. We simply give them an instruc-
tion and they do it. When we want our robot to cook our
dinner, it does that. When we want our robot to give us
a bath or go get the groceries, it does these things.
Without question.
But such a robot could not love us. There were be
no question of love because the robot is a machine,
without the freedom of choice to love or not love.
God is smarter. He created living beings from
Himself. When He created us, He gave us the freedom to
love Him or not.
Such freedom is the only way that He could truly
receive love. He had to let go, and give us some inde-
pendence.
This means that He had to grant us the inde-
pendence to reject Him if we wanted to. The
independence to turn away from Him. The independ-
ence to even deny His existence if we wanted to.
With this freedom of choice, certainly there are
many of His children that chose to love God and ex-
change a relationship with God.
After all, the Supreme Being is also supremely lov-
able. God is not an old, wrinkled up guy with long white
hair and a beard as depicted in art of the middle ages.
Such a strange depiction of God this is! As if God cannot
control His age? As if God cannot control time? As if God
cannot control His appearance? Even humans can dye
their hair and put on make-up to hide their age. But God
has no control?
What a small-minded depiction that is.
82
Time is an element of the physical world created
by God. God is not subject to time. God created time. As
such, time does not have any influence upon God. Nor is
the spiritual realm governed by time as the physical
world is.
Since God is not subject to time, there is no be-
ginning to God. And there is no death for God. The
Supreme Being has always existed. Eternally.
Furthermore, the Supreme Being is always youth-
ful. He never gets old. He is always fresh and beautiful.
He is always attractive. He is the most beautiful person in
existence.
For this reason, so many of His children choose to
remain in love with God. They can’t get enough of Him.
The Supreme Being is always in their hearts, and they
don’t want to ever forget Him.
So their lives are filled with happiness. And fun.
They are always involved in so many exciting loving pas-
times with the Supreme Being. He is the center of their
lives. He is the love of their lives. They don’t even realize
that their Beloved is God. They simply think of Him as
their dearmost Beloved, or Friend, or Master, or even
Child.
These are the basic relationships of the spiritual
realm. The angels of the spiritual realm relate to God in
different ways, but they boil down to either a conjugal
relationship, a friendship relationship, a servitor relation-
ship or a parental relationship. Yes, some of the angels of
the spiritual realm relate to God as their child. And He
reciprocates those relationships.

83
And because the Supreme Being wants true love
from each of us, He also gives each of us the freedom
not to love Him.
This is given in the form of independence. The
Supreme Being has ultimate independence from every-
thing. He can do as He likes.
Because each of us is created by Him, each of us
also has a kernel of that independence engrained in us.
We each have a sort of rebel characteristic, you might
say.
This kernel of independence is frequently tested
by God in the spiritual realm. He has His ways of testing
us. This testing is symbolized in the Book of Genesis by
the fruit and the serpent as discussed in the previous
chapter.
In the story of Genesis, we find that Adam is
tested by the serpent and Eve, to eat the fruit:
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree
was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and
also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took
some and ate it. She also gave some to her
husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
(Genesis 3:6 NIV)
Once Adam decides to bite into the fruit, every-
thing changes. Their eyes are “opened.” They realize they
are naked (symbolizing their loss of purity):
Then the eyes of both of them were opened,
and they realized they were naked; so they
sewed fig leaves together and made coverings
for themselves. (Genesis 3:7 NIV)
84
And then God kicks them out of the “garden.”
This is essentially what happened to each of us.
Each of us was tested and failed, and was booted out of
the spiritual realm.
The “fruit” is envy. Each of us ate that fruit, and
once we ate it, we lost our love for the Supreme Being.
We became self-centered. We chose not to love God.
We were booted out of the spiritual realm be-
cause we didn’t want to be there anymore.
Because real love requires the freedom not to
love, God also created us with the free will to decide
whether we wanted to love Him or not.

85
Question Four:
What is the purpose for this world?
Those of us who have chosen not to embrace our
relationship with God have been put into a physical
body in the physical world to give us a chance to exer-
cise our freedom away from God.
This is the primary purpose for the physical di-
mension. This material universe is made up of arrange-
ments of atoms and molecules. We might see various
shapes and forms around us. But these are like mirages.
Because our retinas, optic nerve and brain cells are de-
signed to see these shapes, we are led to believe they
are solid objects and they are permanent.
But their not. Any physicist will tell you that the
atoms and molecules of this world aren’t even touching.
Yet we think they are these solid objects.
Why would our eyes deceive us? It’s not just our
eyes that deceive us. It is our brains. What our eyes re-
ceive are just a bunch of small reflections of light. It is
like pixels on a computer. But the brain takes these im-
age dots and creates images from them.
It is sort of like how animation works. Animation is
a series of drawings that are run by the eyes very quickly.
The brain is tricked into thinking the images are moving,
but they’re not.
In the same way, the brain is tricked into thinking
that the forms and shapes the eyes see are solid objects.
They are simply moving atoms that reflect light in differ-
ent ways.
86
This world is more like a hologram.
The purpose of this world is not just to trick us
into thinking the forms and shapes around us are solid. It
is set up to trick us into thinking that these forms and
shapes are permanent. It is set up to trick us into think-
ing that we are these bodies, and those around us are
their bodies too.
The world is set up to make it seem that this is all
there is. We’re just a bunch of material bodies.
This creates the illusion that what happens here –
the events and the consequences of this world – are
permanent too.
This is called immersion.
It is like a video game. The video game is set up to
seem realistic. Why? So the player becomes immersed
into the game. The player gets hooked on the events
because they seem so real. They seem like events out-
side of the game. The player gets hooked, and immersed
into the game.
What would happen otherwise? What would
happen if the video game was not realistic? No one
would buy the game. A few people would try it out and
see that it is so unrealistic that they could not get in-
volved in the game. The video game would be trashed
like an old VHS B movie.
Consider this carefully. What is it that makes a
video game successful? It must be realistic – that is,
seem like it is really taking place. It must somehow re-
flect what takes place in the “real” world.
Such a video game must also be engaging. It
must be exciting, or thrilling. All of these specifications
87
can make a video game successful, because people be-
come engaged and immersed in it.
This is how this physical world is set up. By nature,
each of us is a spirit-person from the spiritual realm. In
the spiritual realm, we are immersed in so many differ-
ent activities. These include relationships, games, fun
competition, laughter, excitement and so on.
The only way this physical world could become
immersive for the spirit-person is if we can be engaged
in similar activities as exist in the spiritual realm. For this
reason, there are so many different events and relation-
ships here to become engaged with. Events include so
many social events, competitions (sports), humor, thea-
ter and so on.
Relationships that exist in the physical world in-
clude the body’s mother, father, siblings and other
family members. Those who share the same family.
Other work environment. Those we may date or marry.
Other types of friends.
The variety of different events and relationships in
the physical world engage our soul’s natural need for
events and relationships. The only problem is that the
events and relationships of this physical world are all
temporary. Thus they are not real in the sense that they
will last. Most are based upon the temporary physical
body. When the physical bodies move apart, or die, such
a relationship falls apart.
The point is, these events and relationships of the
physical world are a virtual reflection of the ongoing and
permanent events and relationships that take place in
the spiritual realm.
88
Just as the video game is a virtual reflection of
what happens in the “real” world, this physical world is a
reflection of what happens in the spiritual realm.
This physical world is a virtual reflection though,
because these bodies are our surrogates. They are not
who we are. We are driving these physical bodies
around just as a person drives a car or flies and airplane.
But other than being eternal rather than tempo-
rary and virtual, the events and relationships of the
spiritual realm differ in another important way:
The events and relationships of the physical world
are based upon self-centeredness. And the events and
relationships of the spiritual realm based upon love.
In the spiritual realm, everyone is in love with the
Supreme Being. Everyone is expressing that love with
the events and relationships of the spiritual realm.
Each of us aspires to reclaim this love as we live in
the physical world. We want no more war, no more star-
vation, no more crime and so on. We want everything to
be just dandy here.
But it isn’t. There are so many problems here.
These problems range from pain to cheating.
Yet this world is so intriguing because it seduces
us into thinking that I am the center of the universe, and
if I can get the next material thing, I will be happy.
This seduction is set up by the Supreme Being in
order to immerse us into a situation that we desired. We
desired at some point to feel independent from the Su-
preme Being. We desired to become the center of the
universe. These desires set up our fall into the physical
realm, and our position in this world at the moment.
89
But the amazing thing about this physical world is
that while it immerses us and seduces us, it also teaches
us. Yes, the events and consequences of this world are
set up to teach each of us specific things – things that
we need to learn.
This is important. It is why each of us is undergo-
ing different learning situations at different times.
It is not as though we are in a classroom where
the teacher takes the whole class through a series of les-
son plans through the school year. In such a scenario,
theoretically the students are each learning the same
lessons at the same time.
The Supreme Being is exponentially more creative
and intelligent than this.
First, the Supreme Being created each person as
an individual: An individual with a separate personality, a
separate self-concept and a separate character. Yes,
there are definitely similar people – similar personalities
and similar characters. But no two personalities and
characters are precisely alike.
This is one of the beautiful things about the Su-
preme Being. He can create an infinite number of
distinct personalities.
Here in this world, for example, a car manufac-
turer can design about 20 makes of cars at once. But
then each make will have to be duplicated over and
over in order to supply everyone with a car.
The Supreme Being not only creates unlimited
unique spirit-persons. He also creates physical bodies
that uniquely reflect each spirit-person who occupies it.
Yes, there are similar-looking human bodies and similar-
90
looking animals bodies. Yet each of these bodies has a
unique DNA. Each human has a unique fingerprint. Each
has a unique iris.
Such uniqueness is actually a larger reflection of
the majestic nature of the Supreme Being. The Supreme
Being is an individual, but He also has an unlimited
number of ‘sides’ of Himself. He has an unlimited po-
tency in terms of being able to change Himself.
Sometimes, for example, we will find that a per-
son can have a change of heart and make a major
change in their lives. They might have been one way for
most of their life. But suddenly they have a realization
and they make some big changes.
The Supreme Being can also make changes if He
wants to. But in His case, He has an unlimited potential
for making changes. He can have a change of heart at
will – and for His own pleasure He often does.
Indeed, the Supreme Being also maintains an infi-
nite number of hobbies, occupations, and things He
likes to do. So He maintains a myriad of stations, and
there are an unlimited number of dimensions within His
personality.
This unlimited number of dimensions is where we
– His children – can each be created with a unique per-
sonality.
And as a result, each of us travels a unique road.
We each have a unique history of decisions and choices.
It is for this reason that each of us is also traveling down
a course that is unique, and we are each learning unique
lessons. Just imagine how endlessly intelligent the Su-

91
preme Being is, to create a school that runs an unlimited
number of students through unique lessons.
But know that ultimately, this is set up by design.
The Supreme Being designed a system of learning that
outputs lesson plans according to our unique history,
decisions, concerns and consequences.
Let’s go back to the classroom scenario. Let’s say a
class has 30 students and they are each sitting at their
chair in the class. But instead of learning the same lesson
plan the teacher is giving them all, each classmate is
each learning a unique set of lessons. It is like each stu-
dent has their own teacher.
But here it is not as if we each have a different
teacher. Our ultimate teacher is the Supreme Being. But
the Supreme Being is utilizing His automated system,
and this system teaches us lessons on demand, as
needed.
These lessons come in the form of observations
and consequences. Each of us can look around us, and
observe the decisions of others and see the conse-
quences of those decisions. We may not see precisely
the history of decisions, but we can usually see a specific
consequence related to a specific decision.
For example, we can observe how a person who
steals will be punished. The type of punishment will cor-
respond to the type of stealing. A child who steals a
candy bar from a store might have to pay the store back
plus do some service as a consequence. But an adult
who robs a bank will go to jail for many years – having a
major part of his life stolen from him as a consequence
of stealing money from many.
92
We can see from observing these that there is a
serious consequence for stealing from others. But the
specific consequence will depend upon how bad the
damage was and to what degree the person was aware
of the affects of their actions.
The worse these criteria are, the worse degree the
consequence will be. For example, the child who stole a
candy bar may not have been aware that the store has
an owner and the stealing will be stealing from the
owner. If the owner gets stolen from enough, the owner
of the store won’t be able to feed his children. The child
thief may be oblivious to all of those things.
But the adult who robs a bank will certainly be
more aware that his acts will hurt others. This increased
awareness will certainly result in the bank robber going
to jail, or otherwise suffering greater consequences.
Indeed, the volume of the effect will increase the
consequence as well. Stealing $1 million from a bank will
have a greater consequence than stealing a candy bar
from a store, for example.
But sometimes we observe that the conse-
quences for an action may be oversize compared to the
action. Most of us have heard of instances where starv-
ing adults were thrown in jail for stealing a loaf of bread.
Such a consequence seems to be unfair for those of us
who observe the single action.
The problem with this is that we did not observe
the person’s prior activities. Those activities that resulted
in the person getting to a point where he was hungry.
Those prior activities were probably also involved in the
sentence being so stringent for stealing a loaf of bread.
93
So while we can observe many actions and con-
sequences to those actions, we can’t necessarily see all
of them. This is because we are each paying for actions
and decisions we made from prior lifetimes. Lifetimes
that are typically forgotten during the current one. Yet
still, known by God.
Nonetheless, observation is how we can learn in
the physical world. We can see what others do and learn
not to do those things because we see the conse-
quences of doing them. For example, after observing
bank robbers go to jail, we can learn the lesson needed
– that what belongs to another should be respected,
and we should not therefore steal from others.
This lesson – as all the lessons here do – falls in
line with the greater lesson to love others. To care about
others.
Actions that hurt others will result in us being
hurt. By not loving and caring about others, there are
consequences to our actions. And those consequences
typically result in us being hurt proportionate to how we
hurt others. In this lifetime or the next.

94
Question Five:
What is the meaning of life?
Life has meaning. Those who propose life has no
meaning are simply not aware of its meaning. This is like
a dog who jumps into the back seat of a car. The dog
doesn’t know where the car is going. He doesn’t know
there is a purpose for his owner driving the car away.
The dog is oblivious. But this doesn’t mean the car or the
trip has no purpose. The owner of the car is driving the
car somewhere for a purpose.
Interestingly, those who claim there is no ultimate
meaning to life will go home each night and have rela-
tionships with their family members. Even so-called
cosmologists who claim the universe was created by an
accidental big bang with no ultimate purpose will go
home to their families and kiss their children as they go
to bed.
Aren’t they conducting life with meaning? Or do
they not mean to love their wife and kids? Are they just
pretending? Surely not. They care about their loved
ones, and this gives their lives meaning. It gives their
lives purpose.
Furthermore, why should they care about anyone
else or love someone if life has no meaning? Why should
they care if their child is sick? Why should they care
about getting a paycheck and going to work in the first
place? Why should they even get up in the morning if
life has no meaning?

95
We can find meaning all around us, simply by
looking at all the relationships between people. Our en-
tire society is built around relationships. Not just family
relationships, but also friends, colleagues, peers, fans,
sponsors and employers. We are surrounded by relation-
ships. Without relationships, society could not operate.
Relationships also sustain us. Without relation-
ships, we shrivel up inside. We go nuts without
relationships. Relationships provide the glue for our exis-
tence, both within and without.
The reason nature and society is built around rela-
tionships is because we were created within the context
of our relationship with the Supreme Being. This is our
primordial relationship, and this relationship is actually
the only relationship that fulfills us. Other relationships of
this world actually act as band-aids. They provide us with
a façade of the relationship we need – the one we have
with the Supreme Being.
In other words, the Supreme Being enjoys a vari-
ety of loving relationships with innumerable living
beings – His direct and indirect expansions – within the
various ‘houses’ or planets of the spiritual realm.
Because we were created to exchange relation-
ships, we need relationships. Having relationships is part
of our makeup. For this reason, if we don’t have our rela-
tionship with the Supreme Being, we will seek
relationships with others in an attempt to regain our re-
lationship with God – the Perfect Person.
Just as a video game is a perverted reflection of
the physical world, this physical world is a perverted re-
flection of the spiritual realm. This is why the physical
96
world maintains a myriad of relationships – just as the
spiritual realm does. However, the relationships of the
physical world are all based upon self-centeredness,
while the relationships of the spiritual realm are all based
upon love.
In the physical realm, people are typically focused
on what is gotten out of a relationship. What is the re-
ward. When we are cared for, we will care back. But if we
are not cared for, then we will not maintain such a rela-
tionship. In the spiritual realm, love is unconditional.
Care is unconditional.
It is like comparing two different dinner tables. At
one, as the food is passed around, everyone seeks only
to make sure they get enough on their plate, sometimes
at the cost of others not getting any.
At the other dinner table, as they pass around the
food, everyone is making sure that everyone else got
their food before taking theirs.
In the same way, the citizens of the spiritual world
are only interested in pleasing their beloved, the Su-
preme Being – within their particular relationship with
Him – along with assisting (and caring for) the other citi-
zens – who are also engaged in their own relationship
with Him. It is one big happy family, with the Supreme
Being at the center.
Certainly, we each have the opportunity to give
our life meaning. If we are speaking of our life in the
physical world, the meaning of this life should be to
grow spiritually so we can regain our loving relationship
with God.

97
From the spiritual perspective, the meaning of life
is to please the Supreme Being.
The physical world, while it may give some illusion
of some independence and some dominance, is primar-
ily a place of education. Here we are slowly and
gradually educated. Here we are taught that we all need
love. Here we are taught that when we hurt others, we
are hurting our closest family members. Here we are
taught that we need a protector — and we can’t do it
alone.
So why did the Supreme Being and His associates
create the physical world? Remember that His indirect
separated expansions – expansions of His expansions –
were created with the freedom of choice: We can
choose to love and care for the Supreme Being or not.
Quite simply, the physical world and these tem-
porary physical bodies were created to house those of
us who chose NOT to love and care for the Supreme Be-
ing. Each of us individually rebelled against the Supreme
Being, and this caused each of us to fall to the physical
world, away from the spiritual realm.
And this is why the physical world is full of lessons
in the form of consequences. And it is those conse-
quences to our actions that create our suffering.

98
Question Six:
Why do we die?
Death is the equivalent of being informed that
this is not our permanent home. Just as a high school
student will graduate from high school one day, each of
us will leave these bodies as they die.
Nevertheless, death is considered a nightmare to
most people. Despite the inevitability of death, when
someone dies it is considered shocking. Why are people
shocked when someone dies even though every body
dies at some point? Why is it considered so shocking
even with those with older bodies die?
Because we are hiding from the reality of the
situation. We are hiding from our real identity. We are
convinced that we are simply physical bodies. This is illu-
sion. And this illusion is incongruent with the inevitable
death of the physical body.
Due to this illusion that we are the physical body,
when a parent loses a child, they will often ask:
If God is good, why did He allow my baby to die?
Or if a person has lost any family member, they
may ask:
If there is a God, why did my ______ (insert wife,
parents, friend, pet) have to die and leave me?
In other words, we question God’s existence or
love for us because someone close to us was wearing a
temporary physical body. And we question God’s exis-
99
tence because their physical body died and they had to
leave that physical body.
But we have to remember three things:
1) These physical bodies are not us. They are like
cars, that might get fender-benders or might break
down. Our eternal spiritual selves are not touched by the
suffering of the physical body (other than the lessons we
might learn).
2) The Supreme Being set this world up as a place
for those who rejected Him to have the freedom to live
life without Him.
3) But also, because He loves us and wants us to
be happy, the world is set up as a place of rehabilitation.

Let’s consider point number three carefully. Just


figure how schools are set up to teach children. How are
they set up?
Schools are set up with grades and classes. The
child will enter the school at the lowest grade. This
could be first grade or kindergarten. After first grade or
kindergarten, the student graduates up to the next
grade. Say second grade. Then after learning the lessons
of second grade, the student will graduate up to third
grade.
This process continues for several years. Each
grade is set up in such a way to teach the children cer-
tain things. When they’ve finished that year, they go to
the next grade.
Then, as the grades advance, the students are
given a chance to go to different classes. Each class will
study a particular subject matter. Instead of a grade that
100
covers all subjects, the students will take several classes,
and learn those subjects in order to graduate.
This process is logical, because learning takes
place in stages. One cannot teach calculus to a child
who doesn’t know how to add or subtract. First they
must be taught the basics. Then the advanced subjects
are taught.
This is why there is death. During a lifetime within
a particular physical body the living being will learn a set
of lessons. When that lifetime is over, another begins,
with a new set of lessons.
These different sets of lessons are taught through
different situations and different species of life. For ex-
ample, the lessons taught during the life as a monkey
will be different than the lessons taught during the life
as a human.
This is how the Supreme Being set up the physical
universe. There are many, many different species of or-
ganisms in this world. Each organism is a vehicle that the
soul may occupy temporarily. Each organism or species
has an inherent capacity to learn.
Some species are by nature more ignorant than
others. Those who inhabit an ignorant species are learn-
ing basic lessons. As they learn those lessons, they
graduate to higher species and learn more advanced
lessons.
Just about every species of life has mating and
family. Parents take care of their offspring in the most
ignorant species. Why? Because relationships are the
core lesson related to the living being.

101
As the living being or soul graduates from the
lower species to the higher species of life, the lessons
become more advanced. In higher species, there are
more options for handling things. Acts of violence can
be replaced by acts of tolerance. Such lessons are for the
more advanced species. These include humans and
some of the more intelligent animals.
Over a period of four decades, Dr. Ian Stevenson
and Dr. James Tucker from the University of Virginia
compiled a database of over 2,500 children who re-
ported that they had lived in another body before they
were born.
Many of these reports were meticulously investi-
gated and corroborated. The child had accurately
described a previous life in another body. They de-
scribed what could not have been otherwise described,
unless they had indeed lived in a previous body.
The research behind these reports were meticu-
lous as mentioned. The researchers investigated every
possible explanation for the child knowing intimate de-
tails about the person who died. They knew what no
one else would have known in many cases.
This provides clear evidence that we can live mul-
tiple lives. But what it doesn’t illustrate is how one can
live in an animal body before gaining a human form, or
vice versa. Why not?
Because an animal lifetime is grossly ignorant.
There is a greater propensity for complete forgetfulness
in the body of an animal. This is because an animal’s
cognitive abilities are severely limited.

102
We discuss this science of transmigration of the
spirit-person from body to body in more depth in our
free book, “The Evolution of the Self.”
The bottom line is that each of these bodies must
die. In order for the spirit-person or living being to
graduate to the next level and learn new things, there
must be a facility of change. This is the death of the
physical body.
Death is simply a passage. One might compare it
to graduation day. On graduation day, the student is
given their degree and they are sent to the next grade
to learn. Or, if they are completed with their education,
they are sent out to get a job.
Death has a rap. It is actually a good thing. Just
consider, for example, if we had to live within these bod-
ies forever.
Our bodies are composed of cells, blood, mucus,
poop, pee and bacteria. They have to be fed and given
water in order to operate effectively. Our bodies get dis-
eased every so often, with colds, the flu and other
infections. Our bodies are easily wounded and injured.
Injuries range from twisting an ankle to being stabbed or
losing a leg. Or they can become completely paralyzed.
Our eyes can grow so weak that the body is prac-
tically blind. The liver, kidneys, heart and lungs can each
become diseased, and give us different types of prob-
lems. Our intestines can act up and make our body sick
for days at a time.
Why would we want to live within this body for-
ever? Such a proposal would be like asking if we could
be dunked underwater and held underwater forever.
103
Why wouldn’t we want to be held underwater?
Because we don’t belong underwater. The natural posi-
tion of a human is on land – breathing air.
In the same way, the natural position of our inner
self is not within the physical world. We belong in the
spiritual world, where there is no death.
When the body dies, we do not die.
After all, we know scientifically speaking that life
cannot originate from DNA. The living being is spiritual
in essence. Thus the living beings were, in fact, impreg-
nated into the physical dimension, and have individually
been evolving through the different species of physical
bodies.
We might compare the consequential sufferings
of the physical world to how a child might be properly
disciplined by caring parents. Parents do not want to,
nor like disciplining their child. But they do it out of love.
They do it because they ultimately want the best for the
child.
If the Supreme Being had set up the physical
world to be this perfect place where there were no con-
sequences for our actions, we’d never want to go home
to the spiritual realm. We would never be encouraged to
return to our natural position.
But He also set it up so that we only come home if
we decide we really want to. We must make a commit-
ment to go home. We can stay as long as we want,
cycling through body after body. If we want to stay away
from Him, He allows that. But at the same time, He also
encourages us to decide (on our own) to come home. It
is rather perfect, actually.
104
Just consider, for example, a person whose con-
sciousness was so dark that he only thought of himself,
and considered others as objects of his enjoyment. So
he hurts others, abuses others, even kills others. What is
needed to rehabilitate such an individual?
First they need to recognize that there are others
outside of himself, and that he isn’t the only person who
exists. He also needs to realize what it feels like to be
hurt, because he has no concern for the hurt of others.
He also needs a little dose of humility to realize that he’s
not so great after all. This person is a candidate for a
lower species of life who is subjected to being attacked
by others much larger than he.
Let’s say he gains the body of a rat. As the wild
beasts of the field – the wolves, cats, hawks and so on –
attack, the person is taught what it feels like to be at-
tacked by those who have more power. This perfectly
emulates his abuse of others: A perfect consequence
learning scenario.
In addition, the rat species will usually have a
close family, and the mama rat will protect her babies
against attack for awhile. This teaches the person that
we need protection. We can’t do it alone. Then the baby
rat grows up and becomes a mama rat. As a mama, she
also protects her babies.
In this way, the person learns not only that she
needs others, but that others need her. In other words,
the person begins to learn about caring for others and
being protected. This part of our education process pro-
vides a foundation for learning about love. It is like a
house that requires a strong foundation.
105
In the same way, our education process requires
us to have a strong foundation of understanding the
nature of love, compassion, care and nurturing. Why?
Because this is part of our rehabilitation process for re-
turning to the spiritual dimension.
As we graduate up the ‘grades’ and evolve spiri-
tually once within the human form, we begin to learn
‘post-graduate’ lessons, such as how to care for and nur-
ture others who are less fortunate, or from lower species.
In the higher human species, we begin to learn the finer
lessons of love, such as how to serve others, and how to
remain humble even when others admire us or need us.
The spiritual world is replete with these aspects to
the absolute degree. God’s world is full of love and rela-
tionships. It is a blissful world where everyone loves each
other and cherishes God and His associates. It is the
place where we yearn for (and people like John Lennon
sang about), but could never have in the physical world
– because the physical world is full of ‘works in progress.’
Here everyone is looking desperately for fulfill-
ment. Fulfillment, however, is only available when we
return to our eternal relationship with God as one of His
loving servitors.
And the emptiness we all feel here in the physical
world can be immediately resolved by our deciding to
return to Him. He wants us back in His loving arms be-
cause He knows that only this will make us happy. Only
loving Him and caring for Him, and returning to our
unique relationship with Him will give us the happiness
and fulfillment we seek.

106
In other words, death doesn’t have to mean that
we return to the physical world by occupying another
physical body, or another species.
If we become rehabilitated, and we regain our
natural love for the Supreme Being, we can graduate
from the physical world and return to the spiritual realm.

107
Question Seven:
Why do we feel pain?
Pain is the complement of pleasure. If one desires
pleasure, the experience of pain is required. If there were
no pain, how could a person experience pleasure?
The question of why there is pain boils down to
why we desire pleasure. Why is it that we desire pleas-
ure? Why do we abhor pain? To abhor pain is to desire
pleasure. The two are inseparable.
The assumption that sectarian teachers and their
institutions make is that this world is meant only for our
pleasure. As if our central purpose for existing is our own
enjoyment.
It is obviously not. We can simply look around us
and see that pain is rampant among the physical bodies
of the world. Pain starts with the physical body. Pain is
based upon the physical body.
And the pain of the physical body is the conse-
quence of prior activities. Pain does not exist on its own.
Pain is a consequence of self-centered enjoyment.
We can consider a verse from Genesis in this re-
gard:
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You
are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but
you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of
it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17 NIV)

108
Note that previous verses explain that God
planted this “tree” along with the “tree of life” in the
“middle of the garden.”
Why would God plant a tree in the middle of the
garden that would cause Adam and Even to “surely die?”
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow
out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to
the eye and good for food. In the middle of the
garden were the tree of life and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:9 NIV)
First, it is important to understand that these
verses in Genesis are allegorical. They are symbolic to a
real situation. In other words, these are not physical
trees. They are symbolic. Have we ever seen a tree of life
or a tree of knowledge growing anywhere?
Within the spiritual world there are so many activi-
ties, which revolve around the myriad of relationships
that exist between the Supreme Being and each spiritual
living being.
Each of us has a unique relationship with the Su-
preme Being, and there are different types of relation-
ships. Each type of relationship comes with particular
activities, as we render loving service to the Supreme
Person – and exchange our particular flavor of relation-
ship with Him.
These relationships can be described symbolically
as ‘trees’ because trees give ‘fruit’ that are “good for
food.” And loving relationships with God are effectively
our spiritual ‘food.’

109
Then Genesis 2:16-17 describes that God gave
Adam and Eve (symbolically, each of us) the freedom to
eat from any tree. But He warns them about the two im-
portant ‘trees’ – ‘the tree of life and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil’ – in the ‘middle of the gar-
den.’ Why are these two trees in the “middle of the
garden”?
This is not a geographical “middle” being dis-
cussed. This is indicating the center: these are the most
important ‘trees:’ These are the central ‘trees.’ Why?
The ‘tree of life’ represents love for God. It is cen-
tral to the various relationships that exist within the
spiritual realm because all of these relationships are
based upon feelings of love for God.
And the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’
represents the ability to reject the Supreme Being and
try to become God – essentially becoming envious of
God. This is why God says eating the ‘fruit’ of this ‘tree’
would cause them to “surely die.” Because rejecting our
relationship with God causes spiritual death: The death
of our loving relationship with our Best Friend.
Such an ability to choose is critical in the spiritual
realm because in order for real love to exist there must
be the freedom of choice. God created this ‘tree’ of
choice because without the choice to not love God, we
could not truly love Him. It would be slavery if God cre-
ated us without the choice to love Him. We would
effectively be robots.
We have to remember that God put the ‘tree’ of
‘knowledge of good and evil’ there. Why would God put
a ‘tree’ with attractive ‘fruit’ in the middle of the ‘garden’
110
and then ask Adam not to eat its ‘fruit’? God didn’t have
to put this ‘tree’ there, let alone in the ‘middle’ of the
‘garden.’ If He really wanted to make sure Adam didn’t
eat of its fruit, He would not have put it there in the first
place. This only confirms that putting the ‘tree’ there and
then asking ‘Adam’ not to ‘eat’ the ‘fruit’ of the ‘tree’
symbolically means that God has given us the freedom
to love and serve Him, or not.
God created each of us in order to freely ex-
change a loving relationship with Him. This is why we
are all so crazy about love. Just listen to any song or
watch any movie. They are all mostly about seeking love
or exchanging love. Everyone needs love because we
were created to love. Love is in our nature.
But we are never happy with the so-called love
we find here in the physical world. It never seems to be
enough. Why? Because God created us to love Him. And
until we are loving the Supreme Person, God, we are
never satisfied.
So what does the “knowledge of good and evil”
have to do with the freedom to love God or not? “Good”
here is taken from the Hebrew word ‫( טוֹב‬towb) which
does not mean “good” in the sense of righteousness, as
it insinuates when placed next to the word “evil.” ‫טוֹב‬
means something that is ‘pleasant, agreeable, rich,
happy, prosperous’ and ‘valuable in estimation’ accord-
ing to the lexicon.
Furthermore, “evil” is being translated from the
Hebrew word ‫( ַרע‬ra’), which can mean ‘evil’ or ‘wicked,’
but these are fairly low in the grammatical hierarchy of
the word. The more practical translation, according to
111
the lexicon is ‘bad, disagreeable, malignant, unpleasant,
giving pain, displeasing, sad, unhappy’ and so on.
In other words, the “knowledge of good and evil”
is a poor translation of the Hebrew, put forth by those
with a poor understanding of the event Genesis is de-
scribing. The more precise translation would be
something akin to the “knowledge of pleasure and dis-
pleasure,” or the “knowledge of pleasure and pain.”
What we are talking about is enjoyment. If some-
one has the knowledge of pleasure and pain, or the
knowledge of pleasure and displeasure, then they be-
come aware of enjoyment. They become able to enjoy.
Just consider if a person does not know what is painful
or displeasing. They won’t be able to understand what is
pleasing or enjoyable. They cannot enjoy unless they
understand (“know”) the opposite of enjoyment.
So why is knowing enjoyment a big deal in the
‘garden’? It is because God is ultimately the Enjoyer in
the spiritual world. He enjoys the love and the loving
service of His children.
Because He understands (“knows”) pleasure and
pain, He is the ultimate Enjoyer. In the spiritual dimen-
sion, we enjoy God’s enjoyment. When God is pleased,
we experience pleasure. So our pleasure is connected to
His pleasure. This exists within the loving relationships of
the spiritual realm.
But we know from Genesis that God also offered
us the choice to also know pleasure and pain. We have
the choice to try to become independent enjoyers.
Though it is not our natural position, we still have the
choice to seek enjoyment independently of God.
112
This sort of “knowing” enjoyment is all about
wanting what God has. By wanting to experience en-
joyment independently, we are effectively wanting to be
in the position of God. This is confirmed by the serpent
later in Genesis:
“For God knows that when you eat of it your
eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5 NIV)
Again, the “good and evil” here is taken from the
Hebrew words described above, which are better trans-
lated to “pleasure and pain,” ultimately meaning
enjoyment.
And the operator in the serpent’s statement is:
“you will be like God.”
The bottom line is that we were created as God’s
lover and loving servant, and God is our Beloved. This
makes God effectively the Enjoyer. He enjoys our loving
service, and we (in our natural position) enjoy pleasing
Him and exchanging a relationship with Him.
However, we can also desire to be the enjoyer,
and be the beloved. We can strive to enjoy for ourselves
and try to attract others to love and worship us. This is
our choice: To love God or be envious of God. Being en-
vious of God is the same as striving to take His position
as the enjoyer.
Essentially this is none other than self-
centeredness. And self-centeredness is the “fruit” of the
“tree” that God instructed us – symbolically, Adam – not
to eat.

113
By “eating of” this “fruit” of self-centeredness we
become envious of God, and effectively lose our loving
relationship with Him.
By becoming self-centered, and envious of God,
we “die” in the spiritual sense. As we read on in Genesis
we find this confirmed: Adam does not die in the physi-
cal sense from eating the fruit. Does this mean that God
was lying to Adam? No. The type of death God is de-
scribing is the worst type of death: It is losing our natural
position within the spiritual realm. This is confirmed:
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden
of Eden. (Genesis 3:23 NIV)
The event being described in Genesis is our falling
from the spiritual world. Because the spiritual realm is
populated with love and loving relationships, envy and
self-centeredness have no place there.
Each of us comes from the spiritual realm, but we
do not have to stay there if we don’t want to. Each of us
has the choice to love God or decide to love ourselves
first and foremost.
Those of us who have chosen not to love God by
default become self-centered and envious of God. We
have eaten the fruit God asked us not to eat, and thus
now find ourselves banished to this hellish physical
world, away from Our Best Friend God and our natural
loving relationship with Him.
This is why there is so much pain and suffering in
the physical world. This is why the physical world is so
full of sadness, wars, violence, greed and envy. Everyone
is struggling to enjoy at the expense of others.
114
“What has happened to us is a result of our evil
deeds and our great guilt...” (Ezra 9:13 NIV)
This is the antithesis of the environment of the
spiritual realm, where everyone seeks God’s enjoyment
and cares for each other. We have fallen from that spiri-
tual realm and have forgotten our loving relationship
with God, and our natural position as His loving care-
giver.
But what about God making man in His image?
Here is the verse from Genesis:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
in Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground.” So God
created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He
created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 NIV)
This verse is discussing the physical bodies of
humans and other creatures. Each physical body is oc-
cupied by a spirit-person. The spirit-person is from the
spiritual realm. The physical body is a vehicle that the
spirit-person drives for a few decades.
So why was the human form modeled in God’s
likeness?
Those of us in the physical world became envious
of the Supreme Being. We wanted to enjoy as God en-
joys.
So the Supreme Being created a virtual dimension
where we could temporarily occupy these physical bod-
115
ies. He created these forms in His likeness so that we
could virtually pretend that we are the center of the uni-
verse and we are the central enjoyer. This temporary
situation provides a façade that we are independent
from God.
But this doesn’t mean that we are independent
from God. It also doesn’t mean this world is set up for
our enjoyment.
Rather, the physical world is set up for us to think
it is set up for our enjoyment. Meanwhile, it’s actual pur-
pose is to rehabilitate us.
Why don’t we see this? Because we are blinded by
our chase for material enjoyment. Even though there is
suffering all around us. Even though we are born into
pain, and experience constant pain throughout our lives.
We are so teased by this world that we refuse to see it as
it is.
This is blindness, and those who teach this world
is meant for our enjoyment are the blind leading the
blind.
Yes, there are glimpses of pleasure in between
longer periods of pain. Those glimpses of sensual pleas-
ure are usually very short and very flickering. The periods
of pain are more consistent and tend to last longer. And
those periods of pain are typically linked to our prior ac-
tivities:
As I have observed, those who plow evil and
those who sow trouble reap it. (Job 4:8 NIV)
Yet because we are focused upon the tiny pleas-
ures, the pain we feel becomes diminished and less
116
important. We ignore the pain because we are so laser-
focused upon the fleeting pleasures of this world. As we
chase the pleasures, we easily forget the pain.
The real reason we easily forget the pain and the
pleasures of this world is because these are only impact-
ing the temporary physical body. The spirit-person lies
separate from the body. The only pain or pleasure the
spirit-person will feel relate to the attachment the spirit-
person has for the body.
Furthermore, the pains and pleasures are easily
forgotten because we are always looking forward to the
next thing.
This is why, for example, mothers will have multi-
ple babies, even though the pain of childbirth is one of
the worst pains the body can experience.
This is confirmed by the root Hebrew word ‫רדה‬
(radah) in this verse, which means to dominate or rule
over (“and let them rule over”). The human body was
designated to be able to rule over the other creatures of
the planet, including, as stated here, the fish, birds,
mammals and so on. In other words, the human form
was designed to emulate God’s dominance.
God’s design, however, does not give complete
dominance. Nor does it give complete independence.
Surely God could have given us a facility where each of
us could have a more perfect ability to control others
around us. But this would defeat the main purpose of
the physical world.
The fact is, we are not God. We are not in control.
We are not independent of God. In fact, we need God.
We need our Best Friend and Companion in order to be
117
complete. This is why we are all constantly looking for
that perfect friend or lover. We’ll never be happy away
from God, trying to pretend being like God. And God
knows this.
The physical world, while it may give some illusion
of some independence and some dominance, is primar-
ily a place of education. Here we are slowly and
gradually educated. Here we are taught that we all need
love. Here we are taught that when we hurt others, we
are hurting our closest family members. Here we are
taught that we need a protector — and we can’t do it
alone.
So why did the Supreme Being and His associates
create the physical world? Remember that His indirect
separated expansions – expansions of His expansions –
were created with the freedom of choice: We can
choose to love and care for the Supreme Being or not.
Quite simply, the physical world and these tem-
porary physical bodies were created to house those of
us who chose NOT to love and care for the Supreme Be-
ing. Each of us individually rebelled against the Supreme
Being, and this caused each of us to fall to the physical
world, away from the spiritual realm.
The Supreme Being set this world up as a rehabili-
tation center in hopes that we might some day decide
to return to Him and His world. He ultimately wants us
to be happy, and we’ll never be happy away from Him
and His world. So He created this world as a learning
center:

118
Sow righteousness for yourselves, reap the fruit
of unfailing love, and break up your unplowed
ground; for it is time to seek the LORD, until He
comes and showers His righteousness on you.
(Hosea 10:12 NIV)

119
Question Eight:
Does God make us suffer?
Sectarian teachers who supposedly represent Je-
sus cannot properly answer this question. Neither can
those of other sects around the world.
They will often say it is because satan has taken
over the world, or God is struggling with satan.
This, however, is an atheistic argument: It is atheis-
tic because it means that God has lost some control over
this universe – as if satan is somehow stronger in some
way than God, or can compete with God.
This is atheistic because understanding God’s ex-
istence means we understand God is in complete
control. He never loses control to satan or anyone else.
In addition, many sectarian teachers will proclaim
that sins are caused by this satan individual. Others say
that suffering is caused by the “original sin” of Adam and
Eve, and we are all suffering for their sin.
As if we have no responsibility for our sins.
This is the classic scapegoat utilization: Some of us
have a tendency to blame our decisions and errors upon
someone else in order to evade responsibility.
Due to these and similar arguments, sadly many
people who follow one of the sectarian faiths have be-
come atheistic – or at least agnostic.
For example, in a 2017 interview with National
Public Radio, Mimi Leder, the executive producer of the
show, “The Leftovers,” said:

120
“I actually am Jewish but was raised an atheist.
My father was an atheist, and my mother is a
survivor of Auschwitz and three other
concentration camps and [a] death march. When
you speak to her today, she’s alive at 94 years old
and swingin’ hard. She has been an agnostic
most of her life because she always would say to
me, you know, "How could that have happened
to my family? How could that have happened to
me? How could that have happened to millions
of people? How could there be a God?"
We find many statements like this throughout so-
cieties that embrace sectarian institutions. Why? Because
these sectarian institutions and their teachers cannot
explain suffering. They mislead people because they
don’t know what causes suffering. They tell their follow-
ers that someone else is to blame. Satan or Adam and
Eve is to blame for suffering.
Others simply blame God for their suffering.
So does God cause the suffering in the world? Did
He cause the holocaust – the genocide of over six mil-
lion Jews? Did He cause the Ottoman Empire’s genocide
of over a million Armenians? Did He cause the Roman
genocide of millions of Jewish and early Christians dur-
ing the First Century A.D.?
Did He cause the various other slaughters that
have taken place over the centuries, including recent
massacres of Syrians, or the Bosnia genocide a few dec-
ades ago?

121
What about various terrorist killings we see today?
Is God causing these terrorist killings? Some of these ter-
rorists are even claiming to glorify God as they murder
innocent people.
Is God responsible for all this? Or how about suf-
fering that occurs around us every day? People getting
cancer. Or getting other diseases. People dying. Or peo-
ple getting shot. Is God causing all of these forms of
suffering?
The clear answer is no. Hitler and those who car-
ried out his instructions caused the holocaust. They
made those choices to murder Jews and others
throughout Europe. They made the decision, and carried
out these murders. They built the buildings and put the
cyanide in there. They lured the people into the cham-
bers and locked the doors. Hitler and those who carried
out his instructions did these things.
Same goes for the other acts of genocide, massa-
cre and slaughter. For each of these slaughters,
someone gave the orders. Others carried out the orders.
Those who gave the orders and those who carried out
the orders are responsible.
God did not do these things.
Rather, God gives each of us a measured amount
of free will within the physical world. Each of us can af-
fect the lives of others around us through our decisions
and actions. We each have the freedom to help others
or harm others.
This is called free will. God gives each of us a
measured amount of free will within this temporary
physical world, because we sought independence from
122
Him. Accordingly, God steps back and gives us the free-
dom to make choices that will affect our lives and other
lives within this temporary (virtual) landscape.
If God didn’t step back and allow us to make bad
choices freely, we would not have free will. If He didn’t
allow us the freedom to make evil choices, He also could
not allow us the freedom to make good choices. We
wouldn’t have any choices at all if He restricted us from
making evil choices.
Rather, as discussed with the prior questions, God
has created a virtual world filled with temporary physical
bodies, within which we have been given the autonomy
to make choices – good or bad.
But there is another side of this ability to make
choices: The responsibility of our choices. This means
accountability. True freedom must come with the ac-
countability for those who abuse that freedom.
How does one abuse their freedom? By restricting
the freedom of others.
The epitome of such abuse is murder. By murder-
ing another creature – human or otherwise – we are
taking away their ability to exercise their own free will.
Such infringement requires accountability.
Free will comes with this accountability. Account-
ability is required because everyone must have access to
free will. It is not that God just gave some people free
will.
In order to guarantee free will for everyone, there
must be accountability for those who infringe upon
others’ free will.

123
This means there are consequences to our ac-
tions. Consequences go either way. Good actions create
positive consequences and actions that restrict the free-
dom of others – by harming others – create negative
consequences at some point in the future – either in this
life or a future life.
In other words, those who commit others to suf-
fering must themselves suffer the same fate, to the same
degree committed to others. This is accountability.
Hitler, for example, due to his causing the suffer-
ing of millions of people, also caused his own suffering:
Suffering that he will be experiencing for many lifetimes
to come. Same with those who carried out his orders. It
doesn’t matter whether they were tried or not later. They
will suffer the consequences of their actions. If they had
the choice, they will suffer the consequences of their
choice.
This is the free will and accountability system that
the Supreme Being designed on our behalf. We re-
quested independence from God. We rejected our
position as being subservient and wanted to be free
from His direction. We wanted independence from God.
So He gave it to us. He designed a virtual envi-
ronment where we could pretend to be someone else,
and act freely without His interference.
This is what we wanted. Now, we can’t suddenly,
after demanding independence from Him and freedom
from Him, go back and blame Him for the suffering that
some of us have committed upon others.
In other words, we can’t have it both ways. We
can’t demand independence from the Supreme Being –
124
expecting to have the free will to make our own choices
in life – and then blame Him if some of us use that free
will to hurt each other.

Can’t we have it both ways?


No. We can’t blame God, when God simply gave
us the freedom to make our own decisions.
We can’t blame God, when God simply created an
environment that gives us the freedom to orchestrate
our own governments, and select our own leaders, and
worship our own lords.
We can’t blame God for something that Hitler
chose to do, and millions of German people followed
this racist tyrant.
We can’t blame God for the Ottoman Empire’s
ruler ordering the murders of Armenians, and millions of
Turks joining his military and murdering those innocent
Armenians.
We can’t blame God for Stalin’s ordering the mas-
sacres of thousands, and Russian soldiers carried out
those orders.
We can’t blame God for the orders of these evil
people. And we can’t blame God for thousands of sol-
diers carrying out their orders to massacre people.
Each of these rulers are responsible for those mas-
sacres due to the orders they gave. And each of those
people who carried out their orders are responsible for
those massacres as well.
God is not to blame. We wanted this freedom. We
wanted the responsibility of governing our own coun-
tries, societies and other institutions. This is what we
125
wanted, and He gave us that freedom. We can’t blame
Him if some of us misused that freedom.
But certainly, the Supreme Being also set up,
along with this freedom, a consequence system that
pays back each activity – good or bad – that affects oth-
ers. This means that each of those responsible for the
suffering inflicted upon others will be met with the con-
sequences of that suffering.
They will have returned to them their next lives –
or multiple lives as needed – precisely what they in-
flicted upon others. This is the natural law of
consequences – cause and effect – that the Supreme
Being designed alongside the free will He gave us.
Why? Because freedom comes with responsibility.
This is inherent within freedom.
One cannot have freedom without having the re-
sponsibility of that freedom. In fact, freedom without
responsibility is not real freedom. It is a façade of free-
dom. It is fake freedom.
Let’s say, for example, a teenager said they
wanted to have their independence, and moved away
from the parents. Would the teenager truly gain their
independence if whenever they did something wrong,
the parents swooped in and fixed it?
Certainly not. Such a teenager who wanted their
independence would likely get upset if the parents
came in and interfered in their lives after they wanted
their freedom. Even though they would probably appre-
ciate their mess being cleaned up, they would not have
truly established the independence they demanded.

126
We are in this situation. We demanded independ-
ence from God. So He gave it to us. We can’t now blame
Him when some of us screw up. We can’t now expect
Him to come and bail us out when we messed things
up. After all, we wanted that independence.
And in order to have such independence, we
must also suffer the consequences – good or bad – for
what we do with that independence.
Just consider again the teenager who leaves
home and requests his independence. Let’s say he gets
a great job and works hard and makes a bunch of
money. Would the parents be right if they came in and
took that money? Would that be giving the teenager his
independence – taking what the teenager earned on his
own?
No. If the teenager was truly independent, what-
ever he earns is his. This also goes for whatever the
teenager owes as well. If the teenager has some debts,
the teenager will have to pay their own debts off by
working.
This is precisely how God designed the physical
world. In fact, we find that Jesus and the Prophets all
spoke of “debts” – things that we may have done to
others, that we now “owe” the consequences for:
“And forgive us our debts, as we also have
forgiven our debtors.” (Matt. 6:12 NIV)
This is the same idea. When we hurt someone, we
accrue debts. When we help someone, we accrue bene-
fits. This is the nature of freedom. This is the freedom
that we requested from God.
127
So what about those innocent victims who were
murdered by Hitler and other mad-men? Were they suf-
fering the consequences of their own activities of the
past?
No. They were victims. A person may be born into
a situation where there is suffering as a consequence of
suffering they inflicted upon others. But for those who
are victims of an evil perpetrated by another person,
these are victims.
There could be no free will if victims were being
“set up” in order to pay off their previous activities. And
certainly, no evil person has the foreknowledge of who
deserves to be victimized. An evil person who causes
suffering upon others is causing their own suffering in
the future.
Such a question is like asking if Jesus was mur-
dered as a consequence of something he did before.
Certainly not.
Just as other mad-men made the evil choices to
murder millions of people, the Romans, influenced by
the chief priests, made the evil decision to murder Jesus.
And those Roman soldiers who carried out the persecu-
tion also made their decisions to murder an innocent
person.
These decisions came from evil hearts. The Ro-
mans and the chief priests were responsible for the
murder of Jesus’ body, just as others ordered massacres
on others.
Yes, we also cannot blame God for the persecu-
tion of Jesus’ physical body. God did not kill Jesus’ body.
The Romans and chief priests collectively did their part
128
to kill Jesus’ body. As such, they are responsible for that
murder. It is not that God sacrificed Jesus as some sort of
maniacal lamb of sacrifice (as some profess). That is an
insane proposal – that God sacrificed His beloved Jesus.
Rather, those Romans and sectarian chief priests
were given the freedom to accept Jesus’ teachings or
reject them. If God forced them to accept Jesus and ac-
cept Jesus’ teachings, that means none of us would
have the freedom to worship God or not.
This would then negate the possibility of being
able to come to love God either. Love requires freedom.
If we don’t have the freedom to love God or not, then
there is no question of love.
Love can only come from a position of free will. A
position of freedom.
What are the three types of suffering?
We discussed other forms of suffering earlier. This
included people becoming sick from cancer or some
other disease. Or people becoming hurt or maimed. Or
people starving or thirsty.
Generally, there are three types of suffering. The
first is suffering that is caused by specific prior activity.
This type of suffering is produced by the environment
that the soul is born into.
That is, the type of body we possess and the envi-
ronment we are born into. This includes the type of
parents and the family arrangement. It also includes the
society and the conditions prevailing in that society.
For example, a soul born within a child in a family
that is starving in a desert land is likely paying in conse-
129
quences for a past activity. Perhaps they denied food to
someone, and effectively starved them in a previous life.
But if a child is living with his family in the desert
and a terrorist blows their house up, killing the other
family members, this is another type of suffering. This is
suffering caused by someone else. In this case, caused
by the terrorist. The terrorist will now become responsi-
ble for paying the consequences for that crime against
others.
The third type of suffering is caused by the envi-
ronment of the physical world in a general way. The
general structure and nature of the physical world
causes suffering in the form of sickness and disease. The
design of the physical world causes our bodies to get
old and become increasingly painful.
Sure, the body’s genetic makeup (DNA) is gener-
ated due to past activity. This may make the body
inclined to be healthier or sicker.
But it is the design of the physical world that in-
flicts the basic suffering of sickness, disease and death of
the body.
Yes, the Supreme Being was involved in the de-
sign of the physical world. But we made the decision to
come here. The specific design came out of our request
for independence. In other words, we made the choice
that caused the physical world to be set up for us.
You see, the physical world is set up specifically in
response to what we wanted. We wanted to live inde-
pendently of the Supreme Being. We wanted the free
will to made good and bad decisions. We wanted the

130
ability to mess up. But our main objective was to have
some measure of control over things.
But having free will is not the same as having free
reign. It is not that we became God and now we are in
control. Rather, we have the extent of independence
that we wanted to exercise.
So the Supreme Being simply made a dimension
that would reflect our consciousness. The worse our
consciousness became, the worse the environment
would also become – because the environment we are
in reflects our consciousness.
In other words, those in the physical world who
have a kinder, more gentle consciousness are born into
an environment that contains less suffering. And those
who have a more selfish, evil consciousness are born
into an environment that has more suffering.
You see, there are many planets throughout the
physical universe. In some there is more suffering. In
others, there is less. In some planets, bodies are alive for
thousands of years. In others, bodies only live for a few
years. Many of these are on other dimensions – which
contain different atmospheres. Yes, other planets do
maintain atmospheres that cannot maintain human life.
But they can maintain life within a dimension our physi-
cal eyes don’t see.
This variation of life and exercise of free will and
consequences includes different species of life. A soul
born into the body of an animal after being in a human
form is playing out a combination of their consciousness
and their past activities. In that animal body they may

131
suffer some of the precise consequences for actions they
took in their prior life.
In this respect, it is the specific type of body and
its current surroundings at the time of birth that reflects
a combination of our consciousness and actions in a
previous lifetime.
But once given a particular body in a particular
environment, we are now free to choose out the course
of our life: What is our purpose in life and what direction
we want to take. This leads us towards making different
types of decisions. And it is those decisions that deter-
mine our future bodies and conditions.
Free will is the cornerstone of the physical world,
for those in human form, our consequences are propor-
tionate to our awareness. Animals, for example, do not
have the same awareness as humans. As a result, ani-
mals do not suffer the consequences of their actions to
the degree that a human will. Many of their actions are
taken out of instinct, and thus are not creating conse-
quence.
Animals are, however, still learning. And they are
still continuing a certain type of consciousness. Such a
consciousness perpetuates continued animal con-
sciousness, with a limited array of choices. This allows
lessons to be learned in a series of births, each creating
learning experiences. In most cases, these learning ex-
periences (often suffering) are a reflection of choices
made from within a previous human form.
After those learning experiences and conse-
quences are played out in other bodies, the soul may
rise up again to human form. Within the human form,
132
the ability to make decisions returns. Free will is now as-
sumed.
Without this free will, there could be no chance
for us to some day make a decision to return to the Su-
preme Being. There would be no free will to love God
and love others.
In other words, suffering is not caused by God. We
cause the suffering. Each individual makes the decisions
that eventually cause his or her own forms of suffering.
This includes each of the three forms of suffering men-
tioned above. These three forms of suffering are like
levels of platforms. Each respond to a different level of
our consciousness and consequences.
The type of body we receive – and the environ-
ment, the society, family, status and so forth – are all a
result of a combination of our consciousness and our
consequences.
The bottom line is that none of us are victims.
Each of us is the cause for our own suffering – and
our own success. We bring suffering and success upon
ourselves.
What about ‘an eye for an eye’?
This doesn’t mean that any of us should take it
upon ourselves to subject others to consequences. That
is not our role. This is one of the fallacies of some of the
false interpretations of Moses’ teachings regarding “an
eye for an eye” – misinterpreted and mistranslated as
well – by people among the same sect that ended up
persecuting Jesus as well as some of the Prophets.

133
Moses wasn’t telling us that God wanted us to
take it upon ourselves to make sure that others received
the full – or even unjust – consequence of their actions.
God wasn’t telling them to punish others who
break religious precepts by putting out their eyes or
stoning them or murdering them.
Rather, Moses was instructing them on the reali-
ties of consequences. He was teaching them that the
law of consequences is such that they would receive the
same suffering they inflicted upon others – either now
or in the future.
It is outrageous to think that God intended for
people to inflect suffering upon others – such as stoning
and other punishments – for breaking religious tenets
such as not wearing the right robes or being obedient
to their spouse.
For example, stoning a woman to death because
she didn’t wear the right clothing. Or stoning someone
to death because they committed adultery.
It is a crime to persecute someone viciously for
such things, far outside the harm they may have caused
others. That would be like belting a child with 20 lashes
for throwing some food on the wall. What kind of parent
would do that to their child? Only a vicious, evil parent.
Rather, Moses’ teaching was that if we take out
someone else’s eye, by the laws of nature, we will suffer
the consequences of that action at some point in the
future – either in this lifetime of the next. Moses wasn’t
telling his students to take matters into their own hands
and do the “eye for an eye” themselves.

134
Yes, this is how it might be written in the Bible.
But Moses’ teachings were given orally. They were then
passed down for thousands of years before they were
written down. As such, when they were written, they
were written out of context of Moses’ real teachings.
They were expanded, and altered, by those who sought
power over others and wanted to use Moses’ teachings
to maintain their control over others.
Certainly, in cases where a person is harming oth-
ers, society must take steps to protect people by
punishing those who harm others. The motive is to keep
people safe. Not to become the instrument of conse-
quence.
Humans wanting to inflict “an eye for an eye”
upon others is simply barbaric. Society should be help-
ing to protect others from people who hurt others. But
this should always be done with a measure of restraint,
justice and necessity.
For example, research has confirmed for non-
violent crimes, counseling and rehabilitation programs
are more successful in preventing future crime than
throwing the convict into jail for extended sentences,
where they become hardened criminals.
In fact, giving a person a sentence that is too
harsh may well inflict future consequences upon those
who are responsible for that sentence. This also goes for
the ancient stonings. Those who participated in stoning
a woman for simply not wearing the right robe or not
conducting some other religious rite surely will suffer
the consequences of their actions.

135
Yes, this means that someone who participates in
something also shares the consequence of that action.
Not participating, or doing something to stop the harm,
is better.
The reality is that the law of consequences – “an
eye for an eye” – does work in the physical world. But it
is not that we are its facilitators. It is automatic. Yes, a
person should be punished for crimes by law – with a
measure of restraint and justice – and with the aim to
protect others. But we cannot take the consequence
system into our own hands and expect that we will
somehow be able to fairly effect it.
We must realize that every one of us are subjects
to this law of nature. We are not in command over it. We
will in all cases receive the consequences of our actions
done with the intent of self-purpose.
The consequence may or may not be fulfilled by a
punishment from society. But this is not always the case.
In some cases, the punishment may not be enough to
provide the full consequence. So future consequence
will still be required. It will surely come – we should be
assured. Just as we should be assured that just because
Hitler shot himself doesn’t mean he won’t suffer the
consequences of murdering millions of people.
In all cases, consequences are based upon fair-
ness. It is always fair in the long run. Everyone gets
precisely what is deserved.
After all, the Supreme Being created this physical
world because we wanted to get away from Him. We
wanted the freedom to exercise our desires. So He cre-
ated this virtual place – hell – for that purpose.
136
But should He have created a place where we
could just do what we want without consequences?
Should we be able to harm others and just keep living
on in health and wealth with no pay back? Such a sce-
nario is completely unreasonable. Such a design lacks
the basic premise of fairness.
The Supreme Being didn’t create the suffering of
this world. We created the suffering. It was our self-
centered activities that created all the suffering in this
world.
All the Supreme Being did was set up a world
where every action has a reaction. It was each of us that
made the decisions and did the actions. So the suffering
that we have in this world is a product of our self-
centered activities. As a result, we have suffering.
Just consider this verse from the Book of Genesis:
And the LORD God said, “The man has now
become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.
He must not be allowed to reach out his hand
and take also from the tree of life and eat, and
live forever.” So the LORD God banished him
from the Garden of Eden to work the ground
from which he had been taken. (Genesis 3:22-23
NIV)
This allegorical verse defines some of the condi-
tions of our banishment from the spiritual realm. The
“Garden of Eden” is the symbolic representation of the
spiritual realm.
“Has become like one of Us, knowing” is translated
from the Hebrew phrase, ‫( היה אחד ידע‬hayah ‘echad
137
yada`). This doesn’t say that we became like God in the
fullest sense. Rather, it indicates a change of conscious-
ness. In the spiritual realm, we maintain the position as
one of God’s loving servants in one respect or another.
But there was a change of consciousness. Genesis
represents this change in its symbolism to eating the
fruit. What is this fruit? It is the fruit of enviousness. We
no longer wanted to love and serve the Supreme Being
and work for God’s enjoyment. We wanted to receive
enjoyment. We wanted to be the enjoyer. We wanted to
enjoy as God enjoys.
This change of consciousness is represented in
Genesis in this verse:
Then the eyes of both of them were opened,
and they realized they were naked; so they
sewed fig leaves together and made coverings
for themselves. (Genesis 3:7 NIV)
This consciousness change of realizing they were
naked means they began realizing their self-centered-
ness. This means their consciousness changed from one
of purity to one of self-centeredness.
This symbolism tells of that moment when we
began seeking our own satisfaction rather than seeking
to please God. This is akin to becoming envious of God’s
position.
We were created by God to love and serve God.
Thus, our normal position in the spiritual realm is God’s
servitor. By nature, our joy is giving God enjoyment. Yet
because love requires freedom, we also have been given
the freedom to seek God’s position of being the enjoyer.
138
Should we become envious of His enjoyment, we seek
to be “like” God.
This phrase also indicates that the position of be-
ing self-focused is normally God’s position. Therefore,
the meaning of the verse in Genesis 3:22-23 is akin to
now seeking God’s position. We now seek to be like
God, because we seek to be the enjoyer.
You see, self-centeredness is God’s natural posi-
tion. But it is not our natural position. This is why we
naturally coil when we see someone acting in an obvi-
ous self-centered fashion. Their self-centeredness
bothers us because inherently we realize that none of us
are by nature self-centered.
In 3:22 above, “Good and evil” are being translated
from ‫( טוב‬towb) and ‫( רע‬ra`). The more accurate transla-
tion of these two words relates better to pleasure and
pain. To the Supreme Being, pleasure and pain come
naturally, because He is the reservoir of all emotions, and
He is the enjoyer of all these.
Those in the spiritual realm whose lives are fo-
cused upon pleasing the Supreme Being do not
experience self-centered pleasure and its natural conse-
quence, pain. They are only focused upon God’s
pleasure, and thus they only experience spiritual pleas-
ure – the pleasure connected to love. And even what
could be supposed as pain for the inhabitants of the
spiritual realm – mainly the pain of separation from God
– is also spiritually pleasurable to those inhabitants.
But as explained in Genesis 3:22-23, to become
the enjoyer means experiencing pleasure and pain –
due to self-centeredness. By becoming self-centered, we
139
immediately put ourselves into a condition that some-
times results in pain.
God is saying that because we now seek His posi-
tion, we will know self-centered pleasure and pain on
our own. We will thus have to experience the results of a
self-centered existence – fleeting flashes of pleasure
combined with pain.
However, we must remember this verse follows a
previous verse that is critical to the equation:
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam
and his wife and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21
NIV)
Let’s quickly review the meaning of this verse. The
next word ‫`( עשה‬asah) translated to “made” also means
to produce, do, work, act with effect or effect. So the
word includes designing and producing.
“Garments” translated from ‫( כתנת‬kĕthoneth) is
also used in Hebrew to describe a tunic or undergar-
ment. It is worn underneath the clothes.
“Of skin” is translated from ‫`( עור‬owr), but specifi-
cally means human skin, the skin of the gums, and more
appropriately, the physical body. While it can also mean
the skin of animals, this usage is more obscure.
“Clothed them” comes from the Hebrew word
‫( לבש‬labash), which also refers to becoming covered or
enveloped.
Why would Adam and Eve, who were previously
naked according to the parable, suddenly put on un-
derwear? And what were they planning to wear over top
of the underwear?
140
This use indicates symbolism is being used. When
we combine the Hebrew word ‫`( עור‬owr) with ‫( לבש‬la-
bash), we find the verse is discussing becoming covered
or enveloped by skin.
In other words, this verse is indicating that the
Supreme Being, in response to Adam and Eve becoming
self-centered, banned them from the spiritual realm.
This is a parable about us: Each of us was banned
from the spiritual realm because we became self-
centered.
And our being banned came in the form of be-
coming covered by these physical bodies.
In other words, we were kicked out of the spiritual
realm and forced to take on physical bodies within the
physical realm.
Consider that the human body is like an under-
garment, because it lies beneath one’s clothing. The
human body was designed and produced by God. The
human body was designed to envelop, clothe, or cover
the spiritual living being, just as a suit of armor is de-
signed to envelop, clothe or cover the body, and just as
an automobile is designed to envelop, clothe or cover a
driver.
As we discussed previously, one can scientifically
arrive at the understanding that we are not the physical
body.
We are each spiritual beings, temporarily occupy-
ing a physical body, much as a driver temporarily drives
an automobile. Once the driver is behind the wheel, the
driver steers the car. Sometimes the driver even begins
to identify with the car.
141
In the same way, once within the physical body,
by God’s design, we begin to identify ourselves with the
body. We then begin to seek out our happiness as
though we were these physical bodies.
This is why none of us are happy. We are seeking
self-centered enjoyment outside of our natural position.
As a result, we were given physical bodies with
which to exercise the independence we desire.
But after some time within the body, we begin to
identify with this temporary vehicle: We begin to think
our body is “me.”
Once we misidentify ourselves, we begin to seek
our happiness within that identity.
But the Supreme Being did not design the physi-
cal world and these physical bodies without principles.
Since we have chosen to act outside of our innate spiri-
tual capacity, the Supreme Being had to design the
physical world and these physical bodies with the con-
cept of consequences.
Once we became envious, there was no place for
us in the spiritual realm. We fell away from the spiritual
realm due to our self-centered desires. These desires be-
came manifest by our taking on a particular type of
temporary physical body.
These physical bodies are designed to execute
our desire for self-centered enjoyment and independ-
ence from God. These bodies were designed for us to
play out our desires to be in God’s position.
We can see this all around us. Just about everyone
is focused upon accomplishing self-centered desires. We

142
are each pining to be served by others, and loved by
others. Our lives revolve around ourselves.
This starts from the beginning of physical life. We
enter the world crying for comfort. As babies, we per-
petually cry—from the time of birth until the time we
can talk. Then once we can talk, we are still crying out.
Why all the crying?
We want to be free of pain. Then we want to be
fed. When we don’t get fed, we cry. Then we want to be
hugged. We want love.
In other words, we want service. Being fed – be-
ing taken care of – these are acts of service from others –
namely our mom and dad.
Do babies come into the world wanting to give
anything back to mama who carried them and sacrificed
for nine months? No. We want more. We want food.
Then we want attention. Then we want toys. As we
grow older, we want the other kids to respect us. We
want our peers to like us, and give us respect. We also
want bigger toys. And later, we want to enjoy sex.
As we grow older, our self-centeredness expands.
We want to make lots of money. We want to be the high
school star. Then we want to be famous. Then we want a
beautiful husband or wife. We want a big job, a big
house and we want to drive a big car. It goes on and on.
When these do not fulfill us, we want more. Like a
family. Yea, we want kids. We want to “create” little peo-
ple who will look up to us and love us. Then we want to
teach our little “creations” our great wisdom, so they can
do want we want them to do.

143
Then later on we want to retire. We want to sit
back and enjoy life. We want to take a cruise. We want
our grandchildren to come around to love us and serve
us.
This is how most of us see becoming happy here
in this world. What is this? This is the desire to be like
God: To be loved; to be served; to own stuff; to create
people; to be the king of our own little kingdom.
These are by nature parts of God’s position. Yet
this is what we want.
None of the people living in the physical world
want to serve. No of us wants to be a servant. We all
want to be masters. We all want to rule over others. This
is our disease, and this is why we are here in this physical
world, away from God.
Yet despite these facts, we each end up being
servants. We become servants of our bodies. We be-
come servants of our families. Servants of our employers.
Or servants of our fans. Or servants of the buyers of the
products we make or the things we do.
We can see this in the life of any politician. The
politician wants to get into a position of power so they
can rule over people. But in order to become elected,
the politician must do some service. He must show
people that he is worth something.
Then once the politician gets elected, he must
serve the people. He becomes a civil servant – acting on
behalf of the people. And those politicians who do not
do at least some service for the people don’t get re-
elected.

144
So despite the fact that we each want to be
served – we are by nature servants. We are not God. We
are not in control. We are controlled by nature. We are
servants by nature.
This is because we are created by the Supreme
Being to love and serve Him. This is our natural position.
The “tree of life” described in Genesis is described
as being in the “middle” of the “Garden.” What is the
“tree of life?” The “tree of life” symbolizes our loving rela-
tionship with the Supreme Being, and its “fruit” is love for
God – what ultimately fulfills us. This is why this symbolic
tree is described as being in the “middle” of the “Garden”
– which symbolizes the spiritual realm.
But once we became envious of God we had to
give up our loving relationship with God.
Relationships are like this. Let’s say that we had a
childhood friend for many years, and suddenly they
achieved something that we became jealous of. This
envy would certainly overwhelm and damage that rela-
tionship we had. True friends do not feel envious of each
other. They support each other. Enviousness thus dam-
ages any loving relationship.
It is the same with God and each of us. Once we
become envious of God’s position we automatically
gave up our position of one of God’s loving servants and
playmates within the spiritual realm.
Our jealously not only deprived us of our loving
feelings for God. It also resulted in our fall from the spiri-
tual realm. We fell and took on a temporary body in the
physical world.

145
Yes, these bodies subject us to experiences of
pleasure and pain as laid out in Genesis. But this occurs
not because God is wanting to inflict pain upon us.
It is because in order to be self-centered, we must
experience both pleasure and pain. The self-centered
experience would not be complete without both ex-
periences.
Why? Because being self-centered requires a de-
gree of independence. And independence would not be
possible without good and bad choices.
Let’s say, for example, that a teenage boy no
longer wanted to obey his parents and yield to house-
hold chores and the responsibilities relating to being a
family member – which included family relationships.
The child wanted to have the same freedoms as the
parents had. What would have to happen?
In order to achieve this position, the parents
would have to grant the boy independence. The boy
would have to be let out on his own so that he could
make his own choices. He wouldn’t have to do any more
chores around the house. He wouldn’t have to take out
the trash, for example. But in order to achieve that, he
would have to move out of the house and be on his
own.
Such a position would require that the boy would
have to go out and find a job so that he could take care
of himself. Then once he is making some money, he
would have to rent a place to stay. Then he’d have to
buy food and make his own dinners, and do his own
chores.

146
And yes, the boy certainly would have achieved
his independence. He now has the freedom to take out
the trash or not.
But alongside that freedom come the conse-
quences of freedom. These include working for the
money. They include cleaning the house. And they in-
clude taking out the trash or suffering from the
consequences of not taking out the trash.
What would that be? If the boy didn’t take out his
trash the trash would pile up and it would stink and rats
would invade his apartment and he might get kicked
out of his apartment for not taking out the trash.
Let’s say that this happened and the boy did get
kicked out of the apartment (evicted). And he had to live
on the street. At this point, would the boy blame the
parents for making him live on the streets? Would he say
that it was his parents’ fault that he didn’t take out the
trash and he got kicked out of his apartment?
That would be ridiculous. The parents simply
granted the boy his independence – which meant he
had to leave the house. Certainly, the boy did get what
he was wanting from his parents. He got freedom from
them.
So why would it be his parents’ fault if he got
booted out on the street for not taking out his trash?
What would we think about such a boy? A boy
who blames his parents for such a thing would be
thought of as simply being a spoiled brat. Someone who
never grew up. Someone who doesn’t take responsibil-
ity for his own actions.

147
This is precisely where we are at the moment. We
previously wanted our independence from God. We
wanted to enjoy for ourselves. We wanted to get away
from the responsibilities of being a loving family mem-
ber of the spiritual realm.
So He gave us that independence. He gave us a
virtual dimension where we could take on an independ-
ent personality. This is the physical world and our
physical bodies.
But in order to accomplish that independence, we
also have to contend with the consequences of inde-
pendence. That is, the consequences of making good
and bad decisions – decisions that affect others either in
a positive way or a negative way.
And naturally, the consequences of actions that
affect people in a bad way are bad consequences –
painful consequences. And the consequences of actions
that affect people in a positive way are good conse-
quences. Naturally.
Remember, this is part of the equation of being
independent – alongside other independent people.
In other words, whatever suffering is taking place
within the physical world is our responsibility. Each of us
have made the decisions and taken the actions that got
us to the situation we are in at the moment.
Yes, some of those decisions and actions were
taken in previous lifetimes. This begins with the deci-
sions and actions we took when we were in the spiritual
realm before our fall.
But then each physical lifetime since then, we’ve
made further decisions and actions that affected others
148
around us. These actions have the consequence of af-
fecting us specifically – in our current or next lifetime.
If we undertake something in a previous life that is
not paid back in that lifetime, it carries on to the next
lifetime.
You can read more about this science of transmi-
gration of the spirit-person in my book, Evolution of the
Self.
The bottom line is that we should not be blaming
God for our current suffering or the suffering of others.
He is not responsible. We are.
A suffering event was caused by causing some-
one else that suffering at a prior time – or prior lifetime.
For example, a person who is born into starvation
was likely responsible for the starvation of others in a
former lifetime.
This can actually be within the same region as
well. For example, there are people in African countries
who are raping women and putting families into hard-
ship and even stealing food deliveries before they can
get to the starving families. What happens to such a per-
son? Often they are not caught or imprisoned or in any
other fashion paid for their crimes against others during
their lifetime.
Then say they are shot at some point. Where do
they go? Does such a person – responsible for rape,
murder and starving others – go to heaven? Don’t be
ridiculous.
They may land right back into that region where
they were raping women and starving children. But this
time, they are born in the womb of a woman who was
149
raped, and as a baby, they starve because of the very
tactics they had employed in their previous lifetime.
In other words, they receive the precise conse-
quences of their prior actions. It is automatic. Why?
Because the Supreme Being gave us a degree of
independence, and such independence requires a con-
dition of consequences in order to be truly independent.
Such a system is also a learning system. It is a per-
fect system. Yes, there is suffering – but that suffering is,
like the physical body, temporary. It is taking place
within a virtual dimension. A virtual body.
First, this doesn’t mean that we should not help
starving children. We should not be making judgments,
nor should we also deny children food or care. Such ac-
tions would only perpetuate the crime – for which the
new criminals would pay.
As such, we should always have mercy upon oth-
ers who are paying the consequences of prior activities.
It is not that we should not help them. We should help
them – as such love and mercy has the effect of helping
to cleanse the consciousness.
This understanding does clear the air on the es-
sential question of whether God makes us suffer.
God loves us and cares for us. He doesn’t want us
to suffer. He doesn’t want our bodies to experience pain.
But they must experience pain if we want to maintain
the condition of independence. We must experience the
consequences of good and bad activities if we want to
remain in a state of independence – away from God.
It is really our choice. God did not choose our cur-
rent situation for us. We chose it. Throughout the
150
process, God has allowed us the independence to get
away from Him and maintain a virtually independent
lifestyle – one that we choose.
And we’ve made these choices all along. He’s
given us the freedom to reject Him and rebel against
Him. Why?
Because He wants us to freely love Him. Love
would be useless if we were forced to love. In order to
truly receive love, God must give us the freedom to love
Him or not. If we didn’t have that freedom, then loving
God would be impossible.
In order to give us this freedom, God created the
physical world and these physical bodies—in order for
us to gain our independence from Him and decide out
of freedom whether we want to love Him or not.
This is a key element because suffering takes
place on the level of the physical body—not at the level
of the spirit-person.
For example, if my body fell off a bike and broke a
leg, my leg might be broken and hurt, but the real me –
the spirit-person – doesn’t have a broken leg.
Again, we can use the automobile analogy. I can
sit down in my car and I might drive over some nails that
pop my car’s tires. The car now can’t be driven until the
tires are fixed.
So I can simply stop the car, take out the keys and
walk away from the car until the tires are fixed. It is not as
if when the tires got flat, I suddenly lost the ability to
walk. No. The driver is unaffected by the car’s inability to
drive.

151
Same with the car’s engine. If the engine blows,
the car won’t run. The driver simply gets out of the car
and walks away. The blown engine didn’t affect the
driver’s health.
The reason why the driver is unaffected by the
car’s broken motor or flat tires is because the driver is
not the car. The driver has a separate existence from the
car. The car is simply a vehicle that the driver chooses to
drive around.
As we compare this with our current situation, the
spirit-person is driving the physical body around just as a
person would drive a car. The difference is that the driver
of the body – the spirit-person – is made of a composi-
tion that is different from the body. Not only is the spirit-
person not the body: The spirit-person is of a different
dimension than the physical dimension.
This means that the body’s suffering does not af-
fect the spirit-person outside of the spirit-person’s false
identification with the body.
For example, let’s say that a man drives a shiny
new car into a parking lot and a rebellious teenager
walks by and puts a large scratch along the side of the
car. Now that scratch didn’t directly hurt the man or
damage the man. The car might have a big scratch in it,
but the man is unharmed.
Yet the man will likely get out of the car and be-
come very upset that the car got scratched. Why? The
man didn’t get hurt.
But because the man is attached to the car, he
gets upset. Perhaps the man wants to maintain the car
in good shape so he can sell it one day. Or perhaps the
152
man feels his identity is connected to the car. He feels
that if the car looks bad, he looks bad. Either way, having
a big long scratch on the car interferes with the man’s
purpose for the car. And because of this interference, the
man becomes upset if the car is damaged in some way.
Now let’s say the damage to the car possibly inter-
rupted the man’s ability to drive the car. Let’s say that
instead of just scratching the car, the teenager put sugar
in the gas tank of the car. So the man could no longer
drive the car.
Again, even though the man has a separate exis-
tence from his car, the man may become very angry that
the teenager interrupted the man’s ability to drive the
car.
In other words, the damage to the car interfered
with the man’s plan for enjoying the car – by driving to
where he wants to go.
This would make the man very angry, to the point
where it seems that it was a life-or-death situation. Even
though the car’s health has nothing to do with the
driver’s health directly, because the driver had a purpose
for the car, when it broke down it interfered with that
purpose.
This may feel like pain to the driver, but the driver
himself is experiencing no physical pain. Rather, the
driver is experiencing some emotional pain from the
damage. Perhaps a bit of anguish – like, “oh no, I won’t
be able to drive where I want to for awhile.”
So the situation might feel like suffering to the
man who owns the car – but only to the extent that the
man was attached to the car.
153
If, for example, the car was an old beater with lots
of dents and scratches, would the man feel the same?
Certainly not. The man would not feel as an-
guished by a big scratch. And if the car broke down, he
wouldn’t car as much because the car was old and worn
out now. So in this case, the man might just walk away
from the old car and start looking for a new car.
In the very same way, we have a separate exis-
tence from these physical bodies. But the more attached
we are to these physical bodies, the more we will tend
to have anguish when the body is hurt or damaged
somehow.
And the more attached we are, the more we will
perceive damage to the body as us suffering.
This brings us to the question of why these physi-
cal bodies were designed to suffer, and why do we
falsely identify with them and believe we are suffering as
they do?
The reason – quite simply – is because this world
is not – as some ecclesiastical teachers portray – created
as a place of enjoyment. This world is a rehabilitation
center. And these physical bodies are like our rehabilita-
tion chambers (or cells).
Yes, we are here to learn. This is why we are born
into temporary bodies that are strife with challenges.
Each of us must bear these challenges, and learn from
them.
And each of us have our own set of challenges.
Some of us are born into sickly bodies and are chal-
lenged with dealing with those types of challenges. And
some of us are born into healthy bodies but must suffer
154
a set of challenges related to society or mental issues, or
otherwise.
Is one type of challenge easier than another? This
depends of course on how the person handles that chal-
lenge. For example, one person may be hungry and
poor and yet be able to handle these challenges with
honor and humility and thus learn their lessons. Another
person – with a healthy body and wealth – might have
some challenges with their family relationships and be
in complete anguish and torment because of those rela-
tionships. Who is suffering the most between these two?
Certainly it is the one who is not learning much
from their challenge.
We might consider this situation similar to a per-
son who sits down at a computer and begins playing a
computer game. Once the person begins the game,
they will pick an avatar or icon to play in the game with.
This avatar or icon then becomes subjected to the vari-
ous challenges of the game.
The virtual world set up by the computer game
might, for example, be based upon war or say crime. In
this way, the game will exert challenges upon the icon
based on war or crime. The icon might be shot at, or
stabbed, or bombs might be blowing up around the
icon, and the game player must figure out a way to ma-
neuver around these.
And sometimes the icon might even get blown
up or killed, ending the game.
But in this event, the person playing the com-
puter game can just turn off the computer and walk
away – unscathed.
155
This analogy – comparing the physical world and
these physical bodies to a computer game – maintains
other positive comparisons. In a good computer game –
just as in life – there are various lessons that are taught.
While many computer games might be programmed
just to provide escape and entertainment, some are set
up specifically for learning.
The physical world is like one of these. In such a
computer game, the icon might be subjected to various
challenges that require the person playing the game to
solve problems or otherwise deal with difficult situations
in order to learn something. As such, when the person
finishes playing the computer game, they will come
away knowing some stuff they didn’t know before.
Such is our situation – if we choose to learn the
lessons this world is providing to us.
Yes, each of us will make it out of these physical
bodies – this physical lifetime – unscathed. If our arms
and legs are blown up in a war, our spirit-person will still
be whole. This is because the spirit-person lies on an-
other dimension. Just as the computer game player is on
a different dimension than the computer game – we
exist on another dimension outside of this physical
realm.
And while the physical world is real – just as a
computer game is real – both of these – the computer
game and the physical world – are virtual realities in that
they are programmed to mimic reality. They are not
complete within themselves, but rather, reflect in some
way, reality.

156
The central difference between this physical
world and physical body and a computer game is that
we are stuck here, and we cannot control when the
game (the lifetime of our body) will end.
The other critical difference is that while a person
might become enmeshed into a computer game and
begin to identify with his or her avatar or icon, the Su-
preme Being has set up the physical world in such a way
that we completely forget our real identity as spiritual,
and we mistakenly identify ourselves with these physical
bodies.
This is because this is all controlled by the Su-
preme Being and His perfect programming design. Yes,
God is in complete control. He created the program of
the physical world and these physical bodies, and they
are perfectly designed – with DNA and societies and
time lux – in order to present to us particular problems
and challenges.
Yes, within that control, He gave us free will – and
thus a minimum of control within this physical dimen-
sion. We can make decisions about what direction we
want to take in life and control whether or not we will
stay within this virtual physical realm. We can humbly
make a choice to learn the lessons this world and body
are teaching us – and doing so will allow us to graduate
from this world and return to our home in the spiritual
realm.
Again this might be compared to a computer
learning game. Consider the student who begins using a
computer learning game for school, but refuses to learn

157
the lessons of the game. Such a student will simply not
graduate.
This also happens in this world with those of us
living within physical bodies. If we don’t learn the les-
sons this physical world has been programmed to teach
each of us – in our own particular way – then we will be
forced to “replay the game” and take on a new body af-
ter the death of this physical body.
Yes, each of us has a particular body born into a
particular situation that is programmed to teach us par-
ticular lessons. These lessons are specifically suited for
our particular stage of learning. Our DNA and situations
we are born into – and evolve throughout our lifetime –
are perfectly designed to teach us – or re-teach us – par-
ticular lessons designed specifically for us.
This is why each of us has unique DNA and lives a
unique life when looked at from the end of our lives.
In other words, our body and our environment re-
flects perfectly the lessons we must learn. These lessons
are produced by a combination of our consciousness
and our past decisions – resulting in our past activities –
here and in the spiritual realm before we came here.
Such scenarios are called consequences. In pro-
gramming language it is called the “IF/THEN statement.”
IF we do something, THEN a particular thing will
take place as a result. IF we do something else, THEN
another particular thing will take place as a result.
For example, IF we decide to use our body to steal
from another, THEN our body will be put in jail. Such a
scenario – of stealing – results in our time and freedom
being stolen back.
158
Or IF we are mean to someone, THEN others – of-
ten the same people we are mean to – will be mean to
us.
And so on. These consequences are programmed
into the physical world by the Supreme Being – who
remains in control. Some consequences might occur
immediately, while some may occur later – some in an-
other lifetime.
Jesus, in fact, taught this law of programmed con-
sequences. We can know this as Jesus told a man whose
body he had healed:
“See, your body is now well. Sin no more so
nothing worse happens to you.” (John 5:14 NIV)
Here, to “sin” is to act in such a way that either
harms others or is acted upon in a self-centered manner
– each of which creates consequences.
We also see this in the question that Jesus was
asked by his disciples:
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?” (John 9:2 NIV)
This indicates that Jesus’ disciples 1) understood
the law of consequences – that ones activities result in
consequences; and 2) that those consequences can
carry over from one lifetime to the next.
Here Jesus’ disciples are questioning whether the
blindness was a consequence of the man’s previous ac-
tivities, or was a consequence of the parents’ activities.
(Just consider, in other words, the burden to parents
who must raise a blind child.)
159
But in order for the man to have sinned before he
was born, he would have had to have lived before he
was born.
The bottom line is that “sinning” – which means
to act in a self-centered manner – creates conse-
quences. Consequences that relate to learning.
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the
flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to
please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal
life. (Gal. 6:8 NIV)
Just consider, for example, consequence learning
as now professed by child psychologists as the best way
for parents to discipline their children. Instead of spank-
ing children – called “arbitrary discipline” – parents are
now encouraged to set up consequences for acting out.
This, they have proven, better teaches the child.
So let’s say a child throws food on the wall during
dinner. While arbitrary discipline might be to spank the
child (spanking is unrelated to throwing food), conse-
quence discipline would be that the child would have to
clean the wall, and repaint it if necessary. Such a clean-
ing and/or repainting might take the child several hours
to complete in order to bring the wall back to its former
state.
But what would happen while the child was
cleaning the wall? The child would experience the re-
sults of their activity. They would see just how hard it is
to clean up food thrown onto walls. This would hope-
fully teach the child not to throw food.

160
So how does this relate to our learning in the
physical world?
Just consider the types of consequences that re-
sult in our activities – and which of our activities are
considered the most offensive: Those activities that
harm others.
When we harm the bodies of others, we set up
the consequence where our current body or a future
body will be harmed in the same way. What does this
consequence teach us? It directly teaches us empathy –
to understand the pain that others go through.
And what is empathy? It means to put ourselves
in another’s shoes. Empathy means to care about others.
And caring about others leads to – loving others.
In addition to providing us the freedom we desire,
this is what the consequence system of the physical
world is set up to teach us: To love again.
We are each from the spiritual realm – an envi-
ronment where love abounds. And we are each created
by the Supreme Being – a Person who unconditionally
loves each of us – regardless of what we may do and
regardless of what we may say.
And just as a parent loves their child and wants
the best for them and must as a result have to apply
consequences to their actions, the Supreme Being has
set up this virtual reality of the physical world in order to
have us experience virtual consequences in order to
teach us to love again.
Yes, virtual consequences. Remember that we are
not these physical bodies. The consequences that take

161
place in the physical world occur for something that is
separate from us. Like a car in a demolition derby.
Just think about it. In a demolition derby, cars are
crashing into each other, getting dented up and com-
pletely demolished. Meanwhile, the drivers are fitted
with helmets and cages so they won’t be hurt as the cars
collide.
In the same way, the spirit-person is driving the
physical body. The physical body may be getting beaten
up or imprisoned, but the spirit-person within remains
unharmed. The separation between the physical world
and the spirit provides a cushion so that the conse-
quences of the physical world do not damage the spirit-
person.
This doesn’t mean that the physical world doesn’t
affect the spirit-person. It’s supposed to. But the effect is
upon the heart of the spirit-person. The events of the
physical world will hopefully create a greater sense of
humility for the spirit-person. This greater sense of hu-
mility is meant to help counteract the development of
envy and self-centeredness that has developed within
the heart of the spirit-person.
We might compare this with the teenager who
plays a video game where the game icon gets beat up
or shot at during the video game, but the teenager re-
mains unharmed. In this case, however, the video game
is set up to help teach the teenager. In this way, when
the teenager turns off the video game, he can take away
some lessons.
This of course goes back to the central reason we
are here in the physical world within these temporary
162
bodies in the first place: Because each of us – at some
point – made the choice to become self-centered rather
than God-centered and love-centered. We each decided
that we would rather enjoy ourselves than seek to
please the Supreme Being and His other children and
associates.
This decision – to become self-centered – is the
choice that each of us dwelling in the physical world
made at some point. Why?
Each of us are children of God – but we are also
His playmates. He created us to play with Him and have
lots of fun with Him, and love Him and love each other.
But what meaning would this have if we had no
choice? If we had no option? If we could not choose not
to love God and His other children, then what value
would loving Him have?
Just consider a child of a wealthy family say 200
years ago when slavery was legal, and all the child’s
playmates are slaves of the family. They have no choice
but to play with the child. They are not playing voluntar-
ily. Such a situation would mean that the “playing” of
these slave “playmates” would also not be real. It would
be contrived – forced.
Would the Supreme Being want to have play-
mates that had no choice but to play with Him?
Certainly not. Such “play” would be like playing with ro-
bots – who experience no real love.
This is why the Supreme Being has given us this
power of choice: Each of us has the power to choose to
love Him. This means God has set up things so that we

163
can choose not to love Him. Heck, He has set it up so
that we can even choose not to believe that He exists.
Such a freedom – to not believe in God – is the ul-
timate freedom of choice. This, in fact, is why the
Supreme Being doesn’t often appear in the physical
world to our senses. He stays mostly invisible in order to
provide us with the complete freedom not to accept His
existence – so we can choose not to love Him without
any remorse or influence.
He even allows various philosophies that deny His
existence for the same reason. He sets up so many barri-
ers to convince us that He doesn’t exist.
Why? In order to make believing in His existence –
and wanting to love Him and be with Him – a challenge.
There are so many barriers in the way. In order to believe
in His existence and come to love Him we must break
through so many challenges – the first of which is, “If
God exists, why can’t I see Him?”
And the reason He makes this step so challenging
is because He only wants us to return to Him if we are
completely ready. We must be ready to fall in love with
Him again. We must become ready to commit ourselves
to Him.
And to the degree we are not ready – to the de-
gree that we cannot commit ourselves to Him – He
presents us with various doubts and challenges to His
existence. These are presented from within our mind as
well as without in the form of different philosophies,
such as those that claim that God is a void or that we are
each God – and we are not individuals and so on.

164
Yes, these philosophies – as well as the many mis-
interpretations of scriptures – are allowed and even
arranged by the Supreme Being in order to present to us
challenges to His existence – in order to ultimately give
us the freedom of choice whether we want to return to
Him or not.
You see, the Supreme Being is the person we
have been looking for our entire lives. People say they
are looking for a soulmate because they are looking for
their lost relationship with the Perfect Person – the Su-
preme Person.
And this is why Jesus’ most important instructions
– as was Moses’ and all the other prophets – were to
love the Supreme Being and love His children:
Jesus replied, “The most important of all the
instructions is, ‘Hear O Israel – the LORD our God
is our only Lord – and you shall love the LORD
your God with all your heart, with all your soul
and with all your mind and with all your
strength’ – this is the most important instruction.
And the second is like it – ‘You shall love any
other person as yourself.’ There is no other
instruction greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31
NIV)
This is also why there is so much evil in the world.
Some speculators will say that because there is so much
suffering and so much evil in the world that there could
be no Supreme Being.
What they don’t care to see is that it is our choices
– as individuals and societies – that have created the evil
165
in the world. This is the result of being given freedom.
Some choose to abuse this freedom.
And the basic sufferings of the physical world –
pain, disease, old age and death – are simply conse-
quences of our wanting to enjoy life without the
Supreme Being. They are natural consequences of self-
centeredness.
For example, let’s say a young boy throws his din-
ner plate on the floor. What should the parent do?
Should the parent clean it up for him? No. That would
just encourage the boy to do it again. He would not
learn. But if the boy has to clean it up, then he will be
less likely to do it again – if he learned anything. The
consequence of having to clean it up should have
taught him not to do it again.
In the same way, if the Supreme Being simply re-
moved the consequences of things we have done in our
past, we would never learn from them. In the case of
causing pain upon another, if our bodies come to ex-
perience that same pain, we will come to know “how it
feels.” That will hopefully give us some empathy – un-
derstanding what it is to have such pain. And thus try
not to cause pain to others. This lesson, if it is learned,
leads one to care about others – a prerequisite for loving
others.
Such a learning experience serves to rehabilitate
our hearts. As we become rehabilitated, our hearts be-
come more eligible to return home to the spiritual world
– our home, full of love. Should such a person – who is
becoming rehabilitated – turn to the Supreme Being
and ask to return home to Him: For those, the Supreme
166
Being sends His representative – His loving servant – to
retrieve them.
This is why Jesus did not want those who were
healed to announce it to the public. The healings were
personal – they were intended to reveal God’s authority
to those who were healed and those who observed it.
Such persons – who have a change of heart and
sincerely want to return home to their relationship with
God – will, upon witnessing such events, perceive God’s
representative and understand his purpose of coming
here to save those who are ready to return home to
God.
This is why Jesus would often say stuff like, ‘ac-
cording to your faith you are healed.’ Because they had
become ready to be relieved of their consequences.
They had become ready to return home to the Supreme
Being.
And as for those who claim, “God doesn’t exist
because there is suffering,” they aren’t seeing the com-
plete picture – nor do they trust in God.
They don’t see that we are not these physical
bodies. These physical bodies are temporary and virtual
identities. We live in them for a few decades and they
get sick and die. We identify ourselves as a child for a
few years, and then the body grows older. Then we
identify ourselves as a young man or young woman for a
few years, and then the body grows even older. Then we
identify ourselves as an elderly man or woman and then
the body dies and we lose that identity too.
We are none of these identities, because the
physical body is a vehicle – like an airplane we get into
167
and fly. Just as the pilot is not the plane, we are not
these physical bodies. And just as a person playing a
computer video game is not the icon or avatar in the
game, we are not these physical bodies.
Therefore, what we see around us are physical
bodies suffering. It is all temporary. For example, a per-
son might lose their legs in a car accident, but the
person is still the same person. The person within is still
the same – the accident did not affect their real self. In
the same way, if we lose our entire body – at the time of
death – we are still the same person. We are spiritual in
composition – not matter.
So just as one would not blame a computer pro-
gram for allowing the avatar or icon to get blown up in a
war game, we cannot blame the Supreme Being. Just as
the video game can be a learning experience, the suffer-
ings of these temporary physical bodies is also a learning
experience – if we choose to learn from it.
And just as a person can shut off the computer
and stop playing the video game we can decide not to
‘play the game’ of the physical world. We can – at any
time – decide that we want to return to our home in the
spiritual realm and return to our Master and Best Friend,
the Supreme Being.

168
Question Nine:
Why do children suffer?
The answer to this question is similar to the an-
swer to the previous question, but with one major
difference.
The problem being presented is that presumably,
children are innocent and thus should not suffer from
any consequences. Because they were recently born,
they haven’t done anything to deserve their situation.
Right?
Wrong. The assumption is that children have no
existence prior to being born. Could this be true?
If we accept such an assumption we would have
no good explanation for child prodigies. Some have
theorized that child prodigies have larger cerebellums
and long-term working memory. But these are baseless
theories, because childhood prodigies come in all sizes
and shapes. They also have different brains and different
types of skills.
As we touched on earlier, this is related to the re-
search of rebirth. Such a notion has been documented
among thousands of children by psychiatrists Jim
Tucker, M.D., and Ian Stevenson, M.D. As researchers and
professors from the University of Virginia, Dr. Tucker and
Dr. Stevenson compiled over 2,500 cases of children re-
calling their previous life. Each case was corroborated
with evidence from historical documents.

169
In one case, for example, a child at the age of six
remembered his previous lifetime, occupation and
where he lived. The child remembered living in Holly-
wood, and went by the name of George. He spoke of
people who were in the movie business with him in the
1930s and 1940s. He spoke of having four children and
many other intimate details. Dr. Stevenson corroborated
the information, finding the boy had accurately told of
events and situations that would not have been avail-
able to the boy.
Dr. Stevenson’s and Dr. Tucker’s research contin-
ued over a three decade period. Over 70 percent of the
cases involved children under the age of seven. Accord-
ing to the research, by the age of seven, most children
will forget their former lives.
In 2013, Dr. Tucker, a psychiatry professor at the
University of Virginia, wrote “Return to Life: Extraordinary
Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives.” Previous
to that, Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Tucker wrote, “Life Before
Life: Children’s Memories of Previous Lives.”
In these books, Dr. Tucker and Dr. Stevenson de-
scribe over 300 documented cases of a child having a
birthmark at the precise spot that related to how they
died in their previous life. For example, a child who re-
calls being shot in the head also bears specific and
lasting birthmarks at the entry and exit wound of the
gunshot. Other children had birthmarks at the very loca-
tion their previous body lifetime after being stabbed to
death.
Other children had physical attributes that re-
flected their prior activities in a different lifetime.
170
This element of consequences carrying over to
the next lifetime was also taught by Jesus, despite it be-
ing manipulated out of much of the Gospels. But we still
find traces. Not only in the discussions of Elijah and John,
and transfiguration, but in a question by Jesus’ disciples
about a man born blind:
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?” (John 9:2 NIV)
Jesus’ disciples were asking him whose conse-
quences were being paid for in the blindness. Since the
man was born blind, the only way he could have sinned
prior to being born blind was if he sinned in his previous
lifetime – in another physical body.
Or it could be that the blindness of the man was a
consequence of something his parents did. The reason
this question is being asked by Jesus’ disciples is be-
cause he was teaching them about the consequences of
sin.
And what is sin? Sins are self-centered activities,
condemned by the Supreme Being’s instructions. Any
self-centered activity has a consequence. A self-centered
activity that hurts another person will result in us having
whatever effect we had upon another come back to us
in one form or another – either in this life or the next.
Similarly, if we help another person with a self-centered
objective, then the consequence will be that we will be
helped by another in the future.
This also means that as we continue to destroy
this planet, we will reap the consequences by being

171
born back onto the planet as it descends into environ-
mental chaos.
To those of us who are responsible for polluting
the air and creating greenhouse gases – even if our bod-
ies may die before the calamities of global warming
have their complete effects – will not be escaping those
effects. We will be transfigured – born – into physical
bodies that will have to suffer from the droughts and
starvation that global warming creates. One way or an-
other, we will have to reap the effects of what we sow
during this lifetime.
This is fairness. The Supreme Being is extremely
fair. Why would he set up a system where a person
could destroy the environment yet not have to suffer
the consequences of his actions? Is it fair for one person
to create the problem yet another person has to experi-
ence the results? No. The same spirit-persons who
created the problems in one life will be born into physi-
cal bodies – in one species or another – that will
experience the effects of the problems they created in
their previous lifetime.
This is critical because in the physical world, these
bodies are temporary. They are born, get old and then
die. They are temporary vehicles from which we focus
on achieving self-centered pleasure.
Is this fair?
Just consider, for example, if we were forced to re-
turn home to the spiritual realm after this one lifetime
was over – even though we weren’t finished with our
plans for self-centered pleasure. Would that be fair? To
172
force us to return to where everyone was worshiping
God and wanting to give pleasure to God?
No, that would not be fair. Love is based upon
freedom. In order to receive true love, God gives us the
freedom not to love Him.
Should someone choose not to love God, that
person takes on a temporary physical body in the physi-
cal world – a physical body that allows us the ability to
ignore God and chase after our own pleasures.
Yes, God grants us the ability to ignore Him and
even deny His existence.
Such a situation of freedom is not abruptly
snatched back at the time of death by God. For God
would never force us to return back to Him before we
are ready.
To achieve this purpose, the Supreme Being de-
signed the system so that we could take on another
body within the physical world to continue to chase our
desires.
So what kind of body will we inherit in our next
life?
This depends upon our consciousness. And our
prior activities. It is a combination of these two. The
combination of the consequences of our prior activities
and our consciousness will manifest a particular type of
physical body accordingly.
One might consider this to be like getting into a
particular college. A high school student might want to
get into Harvard or Yale but if they are a C student it is
unlikely they will be accepted. They will have to have
put in the hard work to get good grades in order to re-
173
ceive the good consequence of being accepted at one
of these colleges.
But the college also relates to ones desires as well.
A person who didn’t want to get into college probably
wouldn’t even apply in the first place. Since they don’t
apply, they won’t get in.
We could also compare this to what kind of car
we drove. A person might want to drive a Ferrari sports
car. Or perhaps a big four wheel drive Jeep or Hummer.
Depending upon the person’s consciousness, they will
desire a particular type of car.
But money is the other side of the equation, and
money represents consequences. A person who worked
hard and saved a bunch of money might have enough
money to buy a Ferrari. Otherwise, they might have to
purchase a used car with a cheaper price tag.
In other words, the car a person ends up driving
typically reflects a combination of that person’s con-
sciousness (what kind of car they want to drive) and how
much money they have (what kind of car they can af-
ford).
We can also extend this same formula to practi-
cally anything within the physical world. From houses to
spouses, what we get relates to a combination of what
we desire and what we deserve.
This includes the type of body we inherit in our
next lifetime. This includes the gender of the body. The
attractiveness of that body. What kind of family that
body is born in. What country that body is born in. On
and on – every circumstance is created by the combina-

174
tion of one’s desires and what we deserve from our pre-
vious lifetime.
Yes, we get to choose our next lifetime. Not pre-
cisely in terms of which family or which country mind
you. But by the consciousness that we cultivate com-
bined with the consequences that the activities of this
lifetime, we can pretty much determine whether we will
be in a human body, an animal body, or return home in
our original angel body.
It is within the spiritual realm that we are truly
happy. We are happy because we are exchanging love
with God and love with all of God’s other children. We
can see that this is our natural position as we look
around and see that everyone including us is seeking
love and to be loved.
Yet we are never satisfied with the type of love we
find in the physical world, because all the other citizens
of the physical world are also trying to be in God’s posi-
tion. So we struggle and compete with each other for
position and attention. We struggle for God’s position, in
other words.
And what little love exists within this world is
predicated upon our temporary physical bodies. We
typically love only those who have bodies within our
body’s family, or those who marry our bodies, or those
who somehow prove their devotion to us. Otherwise,
we don’t love others, and others don’t love us. This is not
really love, because it is conditional.
Real love is unconditional. When someone really
loves another, it doesn’t matter what body they have on

175
or what family their body comes from. It doesn’t matter
if the person hates them. Real love is unconditional.
This is the kind of love we are desperate for. This is
the type of love that comes from the Supreme Being,
and those within the spiritual world who love God un-
conditionally – they also love others unconditionally. It is
like an infection: Those in the spiritual realm are all in-
fected with spiritual love.
But once we decide that we want more for our-
selves – we want what God has – it all dissolves. In an
instant, we find ourselves fallen from the spiritual realm,
and sucked inside of a physical body’s sperm to be fertil-
ized. Then the body develops around us, and we begin
to identify with a temporary physical body, as we seek to
use it for achieving our self-centered goals.
We abandoned our love for God and became
jealous of Him – so we were pushed out of the spiritual
realm.
Complaining that God is cause of our suffering is
like a bratty child complaining that because they had to
clean up the mess they made – the consequence of
throwing food or something – their parents must not
exist.
Jesus did not teach this. In fact, we know that Je-
sus taught that the physical body suffers due to the law
of consequences. This is why he said to a person that he
healed:
“See, you are well again. Stop sinning or
something worse may happen to you.” (John
5:14 NIV)
176
Jesus is connecting sin with suffering – not only
here, but throughout his teachings, prompting the oft-
paraphrased teaching:
A man reaps what he sows. (Galatians 6:7 NIV)
And what is sin? “Sin” means to live a life focused
upon ones own enjoyment at the expense of others.
But Jesus did not teach consequences only in this
life. He clearly taught his students that if a man lives a life
of sin he will also suffer in his next life – in what is often
called the “afterlife.”
Yet people will say that Jesus did not teach the
transmigration of the soul – sometimes called reincarna-
tion or resurrection. So we ask, how could a person have
an “afterlife” if their body has died? How can they suffer
in hell if their self does not transmigrate from the current
body to another one – or at least to another environ-
ment?
The body that died will decompose and turn into
soil. So surely they are not suffering in hell in that dead
body. They had to leave that body at the time of death.
This is why a dead body has no personality.
Even though early Christianity accepted transmi-
gration/resurrection and the Roman Catholic Church
banned it in the following centuries, we know that Jesus
taught transmigration – the existence of a prior life and
an afterlife. Consider the question raised by Jesus’ disci-
ples:
“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?” (John 9:2 NIV)

177
By the nature of the question we know that Jesus’
disciples accepted the possibility that the man – actually
the spirit-person occupying the body of a man – had a
prior existence. The only way he could have sinned be-
fore he was born is if he had a prior life within which to
sin.
The nature of this question also tells us that Jesus
indeed taught that the suffering of this lifetime is con-
nected with the activities of a prior lifetime. And the
activities of this lifetime will produce consequences in
the next lifetime.
And this is why people are born into suffering. As
a consequence of the suffering that we inflicted upon
others in a prior lifetime.
For example, what do you think would be the
most appropriate punishment for a person who forces
starvation onto another person in this lifetime? Come
on, what is it?
Yes – you know what is the most appropriate
punishment: That person who forced starvation upon
another should face what they forced upon another:
And be born into a body and environment where their
body is starving. In fact, that would be the only real fair
punishment for such a cruel crime of forcing starvation
upon another person – right?
This doesn’t mean that we should not have mercy
upon others and we shouldn’t help those who are starv-
ing in this lifetime: Certainly we should have mercy and
we should help such children – just as Jesus did. But as
we struggle to understand WHY there is suffering in the
world – this is why.
178
But to understand this more completely, one
must become fully aware that we are not these physical
bodies. This is an important point. So it is not as if suffer-
ing is being inflicted upon me – the spirit-person – it is
being inflicted upon a future vehicle that I may occupy
temporarily.
A fair way of looking at this would be our cars. If
we took our car and we rammed into another car and
dented it all up – an appropriate consequence would be
that our car also gets dented right? But we must under-
stand that the denting takes place upon the car, not the
driver. The driver can get out of the car even if it is
dented and walk away unscathed.
It is the same with the suffering of the physical
body. We are not these physical bodies. They are tempo-
rary vehicles. We might get into one vehicle that doesn’t
work properly but we are still the same spirit-person.
And within a few years we will have to leave that physi-
cal body anyway.
This is why we accept that a person with a handi-
capped body is equal to a person in a non-handicapped
body: Because innately we realize that the person lies
deeper than the physical body.
And it is this person – this spirit-person – who
needs to become happy by regaining our loving service
relationship with the Supreme Being. It is this spirit-
person who becomes great only when he becomes a
loving servant of the Supreme Being and the children of
the Supreme Being. Jesus stated this clearly about him-
self:

179
“By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I
hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to
please myself but Him who sent me.” (John 5:30
NIV)
Wanting to please God means becoming his lov-
ing servant. Jesus sought to please God because he saw
himself as God’s loving servant.

The reality is – and the answer to the question


above about suffering – is that the Supreme Being has
set up a world of consequences. Each action – unless it
is in the service of God – comes with consequences in
the physical world.
And these consequences carry over to the next
lifetime. If one was a thief in this life, in the next life he
will be born into a situation where everything is taken
from him. If one is responsible for starving someone in
this life, he will come to the next life – the next physical
body – in a situation where he is starving as a child.
This never means that we should not try to help
those who are suffering in this world. We should always
have mercy upon others, and help them when possible.
That is our choice, of course. We can either help others
heal or turn our backs. Today there are many organiza-
tions that are helping to feel people who are starving. So
it is easy to help.

180
Question Ten:
Is God an angry God?
Saying that God is an angry God is offensive, and
it is atheistic. Why? Because becoming angry suggests
not being in complete control. To suggest that God is
angry suggests that God has or can “lose” His temper.
Such a notion would suggest that anger can con-
trol God. That something else can control Him. Or that
He can lose control.
The Supreme Being is always in control of His
emotions. He is always in control in general. Never is the
Supreme Being not in control.
This doesn’t meant that the Supreme Being can-
not become angry if He wants to become angry. This
also doesn’t mean that the Supreme Being cannot feel
hurt – or feel any other type of emotion that we can feel.
But He is always in control over His feelings. Any
feelings that He has and expresses are feelings that He
chooses to feel.
The fact is, the Supreme Being has a giant heart.
His love for us is enormous. He wants us to be happy. He
wants us to be in a situation of being joyful. If we are not
feeling joy, He is sad for us.
And if we do something that is destructive to us
or others, certainly God can feel angry. But such anger is
still joyful to God. It is still blissful, because it is felt in
love.

181
The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and
gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love
and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,
and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.
(Exodus 34:6-7 NIV)
The phrase, “slow to anger” in this verse is trans-
lated from the Hebrew word ‫אָר‬ ֵ ('arek). This actually
does not indicate anger at all. Rather, the word literally
means, “patient.”
This word was similarly used in another verse:
But you are a forgiving God, gracious and
compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in
love. (Nehemiah 9:17 NIV)
So this is saying that God is patient, as well as lov-
ing and forgiving – and gracious. Those who have
inferred that God becomes angry are sectarian institu-
tions that want to scare their followers into submission.
Being an angry God is simply inconsistent with
“abounding in love” and being forgiving, patient and
gracious. It is obvious that anger has been inferred upon
God by those who do not know Him.
But God certainly does become saddened by ac-
tivities of His children that harm others or reject Him.
One could compare this to an adult who be-
comes sad or disappointed when the child does
something that is self-destructive. But there is a big dif-
ference between this situation for a parent and the
situation of God. What is the difference?
The difference is that the parent is not in control.
Ultimately, the parent cannot control what the child will
182
do. The child is a separate person and that child can act
out or ultimately pretty much do what they want,
against the parent’s will. This means the child could get
out of control and the parent could lose control and be-
come angry and do something they will regret later.
The Supreme Being, on the other hand, is always
in control. He never acts in a way that He regrets. And
nothing and no one can be out of His control.
Yet He grants the living beings like us a bit of vir-
tual freedom. The freedom is given – it is not taken. And
this freedom is limited in scope.
This might be compared to a parent who has a
baby and he drops the baby into a crib with a little area
to crawl around in. The baby cannot crawl outside the
area the parent has set up for the baby. So while the
baby is given some freedom to crawl around, the baby
cannot leave the crib. The baby cannot just walk out of
the house or something.
So how will a parent usually respond to the baby’s
movements in that controlled environment of the crib?
The parent will typically be entertained by the baby. The
baby will seem very cute, as it tries to crawl around the
crib and tries the put everything into its mouth. The par-
ent will laugh with glee as the baby struggles around
the crib as an infant.
In the same way, the Supreme Being has set us up
in a limited environment, with a limited amount of free-
dom. We are in these temporary physical bodies and we
are bouncing around this physical world trying to exer-
cise our freedom. Why would He become upset? This is
the place He set up for us. We cannot do any real dam-
183
age here because we are limited by these physical bod-
ies. They are temporary virtual machines that we drive
around for awhile.
Sure, like a demolition derby, we can really crash
into some other cars and put some serious dents in
some other cars. We can also demolish another car and
send the driver packing.
Yes, we can harm other people’s bodies. We can
even kill another’s body. But the person within that body
will simply get away. We cannot touch the person within
that body. Our only control is within this physical dimen-
sion – where everything is virtual.
By virtual we don’t mean this dimension and
these bodies do not exist. It’s just that they are not our
real identities. They are machines that we drive.
And it is serious business if we harm someone
else’s body. Our body will become harmed as a result.
We will suffer the consequences of harming some other
body.
Yet this is still not outside of God’s control. He can
regulate and control what is going on at any point.
But that doesn’t mean that He does. He typically
gives us each our independence. But this independence
is always granted. We don’t take the independence. He
grants it.
This means that He is never out of control. He is
never being tested. He is never threatened by us.
Just as the parent sees the baby in the crib as
cute, the Supreme Being also sees us as cute. We are
entertaining Him. He is watching and laughing – as we
try to pretend that we are the greatest.
184
After all, He created us. So what is not to like?
But when we act in ways that harm our spiritual
selves, then He can become disappointed. He can be-
come sad for us – because we are not embracing what
is joyful – what is blissful – and that is our loving rela-
tionship with Him.
Yes, He does want us to love Him. He wants to ex-
change a relationship with us. And this is why He
encourages us to embrace His loving self. This is why He
sends His representatives – to show us how much He
loves us.
But feeling angry – as portrayed in some of the
verses of Old Testament – is not accurate. Consider for
example, this verse:
The LORD became angry with Solomon because
his heart had turned away from the LORD, the
God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice.
(1King 11:9 NIV)
Here the word “angry” is being translated from the
Hebrew word, ‫‘( אָנַףּ‬anaph), which might mean angry in
some contexts, but also means to be displeased.
Translators who translate this word to “angry”
simply did not know God. God is never subject to losing
His temper.
Surely the Supreme Being might be displeased by
certain actions, just as He can be pleased by other ac-
tions. This does not necessarily translate to anger,
however.
And there is a big difference between becoming
angry and displeased. Becoming angry is mutually ex-
185
clusive with control. Being displeased includes the pos-
sibility of being in control, yet granting a measure of
freedom.
When the Supreme Being gives us the freedom to
love Him or not – to reject Him or not – He certainly has
the right to have feelings as a result of our actions. God
can, after all, feel.
Let’s say, for example, that a father is teaching a
child to walk. He is holding the child as they get up on
their feet and shakingly put one foot before the other.
Now let’s say that the parent let’s go of the child
to let the child try to walk on his own. And the child
stumbles and falls.
Does the father become angry at the child for fal-
ling? Certainly not. The father loves the child, and is
probably laughing at the child’s attempt to walk. Cer-
tainly the father does not become angry at the child for
not walking. He just let the child go.
The father can still become displeased that the
child didn’t make it a few more steps without falling.
Certainly the father wants the child to succeed and be a
great walker. The father is neither wanting the child to
fail nor becoming angry at the child while it is learning.
This is more precisely our situation, because we
are here to learn. We are each undergoing a learning
experience. Each of us must suffer the consequences of
our actions so that we can learn.
And certainly, each of us will fall down. Each of us
will have periods where we goof up and make bad deci-
sions. Times where our self-centeredness prevents us
from seeing clearly.
186
Does God become angry at this? Certainly not.
But He does feel transcendental sadness when we
choose self-centeredness over love. He does feel disap-
pointment when we choose to forget Him and chase
after the temporary glitter of this world.
But that sadness and disappointment is love. It is
because He wants us to be happy. He wants us to live
out our life in a way that is completely fulfilling to us.
The Supreme Being wants each of us to be happy,
and the only way that can happen is if we are exchang-
ing our loving relationship with Him.
Why? Because this is our nature. This is our pur-
pose for existing.
Some see the various instructions of the Supreme
Being – given personally and given through His repre-
sentatives – as if they are threatening us: As if He is
saying, “You better do this stuff or else.”
But that’s not it at all. The Supreme Being is telling
us that if we don’t put our love upon Him, we will be
empty within. If we don’t exercise our loving relationship
with Him, then we will be miserable. We will be unful-
filled. We’ll be lonely inside – even if we are surrounded
by many other physical bodies.
So the situation is more like a best friend who tells
his friend who wants to jump off a bridge into the freez-
ing water below, “please don’t jump. You will be hurt.
You’ll feel pain.”
Such a statement by a best friend is not a threat.
It’s not, “don’t jump or I’m gonna get you.” Or, “don’t
jump or else.” Rather, it is a kind warning, given out of
love. Given out of care.
187
The Supreme Being’s instructions are very similar.
They are given to us out of love. He doesn’t want us to
suffer anymore. He doesn’t want us to continue suffering
in our self-centeredness. And He knows that if we con-
tinue to live in a self-centered manner, we will continue
to suffer.
Let the one who is wise heed these things and
ponder the loving deeds of the LORD. (Psalms
107:43 NIV)
The Supreme Being is perfect. Even though it
seems that we are suffering, we should know that this is
a virtual world, and these physical bodies are not us. We
are in a virtual learning system. Yes, things sure seem
real. But when we are in a dream, we also think the
dream is real. But then we wake up and realize that it
was all just a dream.
We can do that in this lifetime as well. We can
wake up at any time and realize that this physical life-
time is virtual, and we are not these physical bodies.
We can then decide to redirect our life towards
rebuilding our relationship with the Supreme Being. We
can get to know Him again. And once we get to know
Him, we will come to love Him. Why? Because He is the
Perfect Person. He is our Soul Mate. He is the One we
have been looking for our entire lives.

188
Question Eleven:
How do I escape this world of suffering?
We can’t do this alone. This hellish physical world
with all its suffering, heartache and temporary nature is
simply too strong for us. We can’t overpower it. We can’t
break through it. We can’t overcome it.
We sometimes hear this – how we can overcome
the world. But this is not a reality. The material world has
overcome us. We can see this everyday as people iden-
tify themselves as the temporary body. People will say, “I
don’t feel well,” when their body is ill. People will say, “I
am 40 years old,” when the body is 40 years old. Or “I am
American,” simply because the body was born in the
United States.
By identifying ourselves with the temporary body,
we are essentially admitting that we are stuck here. By
identifying ourselves with this temporary physical body,
we are confirming that not only are we stuck, but we are
so stuck that we don’t even realize that we are stuck.
It is like a zoo animal that has been born in the
zoo, and not knowing anything outside of its cage. The
animal thinks that he belongs in the cage.
In the same way, we are so immersed in this world
that we don’t know anything else. We think of this place
as our home. We think that we can become happy here.
We think that we can become fulfilled here.
All we have to do is look around us to figure out
that this will never happen. We can see from the most
wealthy, famous and accomplished people that achiev-
189
ing the ultimate success here in this world brings no
happiness. It brings no fulfillment. We can see from all
the suicides and drug overdoses among those who have
achieved fame, money and success here in this world.
Even among those materially-successful people
who haven’t died from suicide or drug overdose, we find
they are not happy. They are not fulfilled. How can we
tell? Because they need more. They are chasing that next
big thing. They aren’t satisfied with what they have. They
want more.
This is the nature of the material world because it
doesn’t bring fulfillment. We are perpetually wanting
more because what material success we do have
doesn’t fulfill us. So we constantly think that next thing
will do it for us. The next thing we buy, or the next thing
we accomplish, or the next person we have sex with, or
the next child we have, or the next house we buy, or the
next thing we eat – will fulfill us.
This is the constant tease of the material world.
Yes, we are being teased here in this world. Because we
think that we are this body, we think when the body is
given some delicious food, or sex, or some other thing,
we will be happy. But we are not.
It’s like a hungry person driving up to a gas station
and filling up the car’s gas tank with gas, and expecting
not to be hungry anymore.
The driver of the car is still hungry, because the
driver is not the car. The car is a separate vehicle.
In the same way, the spirit-person within the body
is separate from the body. Just as a car needs a driver,

190
the body is a mechanism that requires a spirit-person to
drive it.
When the driver of a car steps out and walks away,
the car doesn’t move. It just sits there.
In the same way, when the spirit-person leaves
the physical body at the time of death, the body just sits
there, lifeless.
Okay, so we can theoretically realize that we are
not the physical body. That is the easy part. The hard
part is leaving behind the notion that if we satisfy the
body, we will be satisfied. This is what hooks us into this
world.
In order to change this consciousness, we need
help from a higher authority. One who has control over
the physical world.
One could compare it to treading water in the
middle of the ocean. What if we were to fall overboard in
the middle of the Pacific ocean. How could we possibly
swim thousands of miles to the nearest shore? But if a
rescue helicopter were to find us and pick us up – we
could transverse the ocean easily, because the rescue
helicopter flies above the ocean. It flies over it. But in or-
der to be picked up by the helicopter we will need to
take shelter of the chair the chopper lowers down to the
water. We'll have to get into the chair completely in or-
der to be pulled up.
God's unconditional love and compassion are like
a rescue helicopter. Because He transcends the con-
straints of the physical world, He can lower a chair down
in the form of His representative and save us – should
we take shelter in the teachings of His representative. His
191
love and mercy lay outside the restrictions of time and
space.
God’s mercy comes in the form of a relationship:
Building a relationship with the Supreme Being. The Su-
preme Being is about relationships: He enjoys
relationships with each of His children, but gives each of
us the choice of whether we want to return to Him. Love
requires freedom, and the Supreme Being gives us the
choice to be self-centered or devoted.
Becoming devoted means taking shelter in the
Supreme Being. It means relying upon Him. It means
taking sanctuary in Him.
Those who become devoted to Him and want to
be with Him are taken under His wing and nurtured.
Those who want to be away from Him receive physical
bodies with which to play out our self-centered desires –
remaining eternally bound from one lifetime to the next
within this physical world – essentially lost in the pit of
hell.
But if we take shelter in God with sincerity, devo-
tion and love, He will save us. This is why Jesus' most
important teaching was:
“The most important of all the instructions is,
‘Hear O Israel – the LORD our God is our only
Lord – and you shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart, with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength’ – this is the
most important instruction." (Mark 12:29-30 NIV)
So how do we get to this point of falling in love
with God and taking shelter in the Supreme Being?
192
First, we need to want to get there. We need to
have the desire. This desire can be cultivated, with
prayer, studying the scriptures, praising God’s Holy
Names and making offerings to God.
This is an ancient system, one that has been
passed down from teacher to student for thousands of
years. The Prophets from many centuries ago taught
this. Jesus taught this. All the bona fide representatives
of God have taught these techniques to their students,
in order for them to prepare themselves to return to
their relationship with the Supreme Being.
Let’s go over each of these practices one by one:
How do we pray to God?
It is important to pray multiple times a day. What
does it mean to pray? To pray means to submit oneself
to the Supreme Being. Prayer doesn’t mean asking God
to give us material stuff. It doesn’t mean asking God to
heal my leg, or keep our dog from dying. Prayer isn’t ask-
ing God for money or success.
No. God is not our waiter. He is not there to fulfill
every command we
Prayer means asking God if we can learn how to
love Him and please Him. It means asking God to help
us get closer to Him.
The consciousness of a prayer should be similar to
the consciousness of someone who is reaching out to a
long-lost friend. Let’s say that we haven’t seen a person
we were close friends with 20 years ago. So we pick up
the phone and call them. When they answer the phone,
will we begin by asking our friend to give us some
193
money? Will we start by asking our friend to come
around and mow our lawn and repair our roof?
Certainly not. Our friend will probably hang up on
us. They will understand that our intention in calling
them wasn’t to renew the friendship: It was to get some-
thing from them. To take advantage of them in some
way.
It is the same with our relationship with God. For
us, this is a lost relationship. We have blown off God and
are trying to regain that relationship. It would be a mis-
take to try to use God for our own self-centered
purposes as soon as we connect with Him.
How can we please God?
Praising God’s Holy Names is a prime way to
please God, and communicate to Him that we want to
please Him and renew our loving relationship with Him.
We can praise God by singing or reciting His Holy
Names. We can praise God by singing or reciting prayers
that the Prophets have sung or recited in the past. We
can choose any of God’s bona fide Holy Names to praise.
God has numerous Holy Names.
We can recite God’s Holy Names in the morning
when we awake. We can recite God’s Holy Names in the
afternoon. We can recite God’s Holy Names in the eve-
ning. We can sing God’s Holy Names while playing the
guitar, or the piano.
When we recite God’s Holy Names, we can start
with a short prayer to Jesus Christ. This will give us an
entryway into praising God’s Holy Names.
After that, we can praise God quietly or loudly.
194
Here are some verses from the Bible that support
this practice of praising God’s Holy Names:
From there he [Abraham] went on toward the
hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with
Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he
built an altar to the LORD and called on the
Name of the LORD. (Genesis 12:8 NIV)
...and where he had first built an altar. There
Abram called on the Name of the LORD. (Genesis
13:4 NIV)
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba,
and there he called upon the Name of the LORD,
the Eternal God. (Genesis 21:33 NIV)
Isaac built an altar there and called on the Name
of the LORD. There he pitched his tent, and there
his servants dug a well. (Genesis 26:25 NIV)
“You shall not misuse the Name of the LORD
your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone
guiltless who misuses his Name.” (Exodus 20:7
NIV)
“You shall not misuse the Name of the LORD
your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone
guiltless who misuses his Name.” (Deuteronomy
5:11 NIV)
“...he may minister in the Name of the LORD his
God like all his fellow Levites who serve there in
the presence of the LORD.” (Deuteronomy 18:7
NIV)
195
“If what a prophet proclaims in the Name of the
LORD does not take place or come true, that is a
message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet
has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of
him.” (Deuteronomy 18:22 NIV)
“The priests, the sons of Levi, shall step forward,
for the LORD your God has chosen them to
minister and to pronounce blessings in the
Name of the LORD and to decide all cases of
dispute and assault.” (Deuteronomy 21:5 NIV)
“Then all the peoples on earth will see that You
are called by the Name of the LORD, and they
will revere You.” (Deuteronomy 28:10 NIV)
“I will proclaim the Name of the LORD. Oh, praise
the greatness of our God!” (Deuteronomy 32:3
NIV)
David said to the Philistine, “You come against
me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come
against you in the Name of the LORD Almighty,
the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have
defied.” (1 Samuel 17:45 NIV)
Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we
have sworn friendship with each other in the
Name of the LORD, saying, ‘The LORD is witness
between you and me, and between your
descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then
David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.
(1 Samuel 20:42 NIV)

196
He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah
to bring up from there the ark of God, which is
called by the Name, the Name of the LORD
Almighty, who is enthroned between the
cherubim that are on the ark. (2 Samuel 6:2 NIV)
After he had finished sacrificing the burnt
offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the
people in the Name of the LORD Almighty. (2
Samuel 6:18 NIV)
The people, however, were still sacrificing at the
high places, because a temple had not yet been
built for the Name of the LORD. (1 Kings 3:2 NIV)
“You know that because of the wars waged
against my father David from all sides, he could
not build a temple for the Name of the LORD his
God until the LORD put His enemies under His
feet.” (1 Kings 5:3 NIV)
“I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the
Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my
father David, when He said, ‘Your son whom I
will put on the throne in your place will build the
temple for My Name.’” (1 Kings 5:5 NIV)
“My father David had it in his heart to build a
temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of
Israel.” (1 Kings 8:17 NIV)
“The LORD has kept the promise He made: I have
succeeded David my father and now I sit on the
throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised, and I

197
have built the temple for the Name of the LORD,
the God of Israel.” (1 Kings 8:20 NIV)
When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame
of Solomon and his relation to the Name of the
LORD, she came to test him with hard questions.
(1 Kings 10:1 NIV)
Then you call on the name of your god, and I will
call on the Name of the LORD. The god who
answers by fire – He is God.” Then all the people
said, “What you say is good.” (1 Kings 18:24 NIV)
With the stones he built an altar in the Name of
the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large
enough to hold two seahs of seed. (1 Kings 18:32
NIV)
The king said to him, “How many times must I
make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth
in the Name of the LORD ?” (1 Kings 22:16 NIV)
He turned around, looked at them and called
down a curse on them in the Name of the LORD.
Then two bears came out of the woods and
mauled forty-two of the youths. (2 Kings 2:24
NIV)
But Naaman went away angry and said, “I
thought that he would surely come out to me
and stand and call on the Name of the LORD his
God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me
of my leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:11 NIV)

198
After David had finished sacrificing the burnt
offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the
people in the Name of the LORD. (1 Chronicles
16:2 NIV)
So David went up in obedience to the word that
Gad had spoken in the Name of the LORD. (1
Chronicles 21:19 NIV)
David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my
heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD
my God.” (1 Chronicles 22:7 NIV)
“Now devote your heart and soul to seeking the
LORD your God. Begin to build the sanctuary of
the LORD God, so that you may bring the ark of
the covenant of the LORD and the sacred articles
belonging to God into the temple that will be
built for the Name of the LORD.” (1 Chronicles
22:19 NIV)
Solomon gave orders to build a temple for the
Name of the LORD and a royal palace for himself.
(2 Chronicles 2:1 NIV)
“Now I am about to build a temple for the Name
of the LORD my God and to dedicate it to Him
for burning fragrant incense before Him, for
setting out the consecrated bread regularly, and
for making burnt offerings every morning and
evening and on Sabbaths and New Moons and
at the appointed feasts of the LORD our God.
This is a lasting ordinance for Israel.” (2
Chronicles 2:4 NIV)
199
“My father David had it in his heart to build a
temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of
Israel.” (2 Chronicles 6:7 NIV)
“The LORD has kept the promise he made. I have
succeeded David my father and now I sit on the
throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised, and I
have built the temple for the Name of the LORD,
the God of Israel.” (2 Chronicles 6:10 NIV)
The king said to him, “How many times must I
make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth
in the Name of the LORD ?” (2 Chronicles 18:15
NIV)
The other events of Manasseh’s reign, including
his prayer to his God and the words the seers
spoke to him in the Name of the LORD, the God
of Israel, are written in the annals of the kings of
Israel. (2 Chronicles 33:18 NIV)
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and
naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the
LORD has taken away; may the Name of the
LORD be praised.” (Job 1:21 NIV)
“I will give thanks to the LORD because of his
righteousness and will sing praise to the Name
of the LORD Most High.” (Psalm 7:17 NIV)
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but
we trust in the Name of the LORD our God.”
(Psalm 20:7 NIV)

200
“The nations will revere the Name of the LORD,
all the kings of the earth will revere Your glory.”
(Psalm 102:15 NIV)
“So the Name of the LORD will be declared in
Zion and His praise in Jerusalem.” (Psalm 102:21
NIV)
“Praise the LORD. Praise, O servants of the LORD,
praise the Name of the LORD.” (Psalm 113:1 NIV)
“Let the Name of the LORD be praised, both now
and forevermore.” (Psalm 113:2 NIV)
“From the rising of the sun to the place where it
sets, the Name of the LORD is to be praised.”
(Psalm 113:3 NIV)
“Then I called on the Name of the LORD: “O
LORD, save me!” (Psalm 116:4 NIV)
“I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the
Name of the LORD.” (Psalm 116:13 NIV)
“I will sacrifice a thank offering to You and call on
the Name of the LORD.” (Psalm 116:17 NIV)
“That is where the tribes go up, the tribes of the
LORD, to praise the Name of the LORD according
to the statute given to Israel.” (Psalm 122:4 NIV)
“Our help is in the Name of the LORD, the Maker
of heaven and earth.” (Psalm 124:8 NIV)
“May those who pass by not say, “The blessing of
the LORD be upon you; we bless you in the
Name of the LORD.”“ (Psalm 129:8 NIV)
201
“Praise the LORD. Praise the Name of the LORD;
praise Him, you servants of the LORD” (Psalm
135:1 NIV)
“Let them praise the Name of the LORD, for He
commanded and they were created.” (Psalm
148:5 NIV)
“Let them praise the Name of the LORD, for His
Name alone is exalted; His splendor is above the
earth and the heavens.” (Psalm 148:13 NIV)
“The Name of the LORD is a strong tower; the
righteous run to it and are safe.” (Proverbs 18:10
NIV)
“At that time gifts will be brought to the LORD
Almighty from a people tall and smooth-
skinned, from a people feared far and wide, an
aggressive nation of strange speech, whose land
is divided by rivers – the gifts will be brought to
Mount Zion, the place of the Name of the LORD
Almighty.” (Isaiah 18:7 NIV)
“Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD;
exalt the Name of the LORD, the God of Israel, in
the islands of the sea.” (Isaiah 24:15 NIV)
“Let him who walks in the dark, who has no light,
trust in the Name of the LORD and rely on his
God.” (Isaiah 50:10 NIV)
“And foreigners who bind themselves to the
LORD to serve Him, to love the Name of the
LORD, and to worship Him...” (Isaiah 56:6 NIV)
202
“From the west, men will revere the Name of the
LORD, and from the rising of the sun, they will
revere His glory.” (Isaiah 59:19 NIV)
“At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne
of the LORD, and all nations will gather in
Jerusalem to honor the Name of the LORD. No
longer will they follow the stubbornness of their
evil hearts.” (Jeremiah 3:17 NIV)
“Sing to the LORD! Give praise to the LORD! He
rescues the life of the needy from the hands of
the wicked.” (Jeremiah 20:13 NIV)
Then the officials and all the people said to the
priests and the prophets, “This man should not
be sentenced to death! He has spoken to us in
the Name of the LORD our God.” (Jeremiah 26:16
NIV)
Now Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim
was another man who prophesied in the Name
of the LORD (Jeremiah 26:20 NIV)
“You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,
and you will praise the Name of the LORD your
God, who has worked wonders for you; never
again will my people be shamed.” (Joel 2:26 NIV)
“And everyone who calls on the Name of the
LORD will be saved” (Joel 2:32 NIV)
“...we will walk in the Name of the LORD our God
for ever and ever.” (Micah 4:5 NIV)

203
“He will stand and shepherd his flock in the
strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the
Name of the LORD his God.” (Micah 5:4 NIV)
“Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all
of them may call on the Name of the LORD and
serve him shoulder to shoulder.” (Zephaniah 3:9
NIV)
“But I will leave within you the meek and
humble, who trust in the Name of the LORD.”
(Zephaniah 3:12 NIV)
“Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the
Lord!” (Matthew 21:9 NIV)
“‘Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the
Lord.’ “ (Matthew 23:39 NIV)
“Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the
Lord!” (Mark 11:9 NIV)
“‘Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the
Lord.’ “ (Luke 13:35 NIV)
“Blessed is the king who comes in the Name of
the Lord!” (Luke 19:38 NIV)
“Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the
Lord!” (John 12:13 NIV)
“And everyone who calls on the Name of the
Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21 NIV)
So Saul stayed with them and moved about
freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the Name
of the Lord. (Acts 9:28 NIV)
204
“Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands
firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord
knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who
confesses the Name of the Lord must turn away
from wickedness.” “ (2 Timothy 2:19 NIV)
“Brothers, as an example of patience in the face
of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the
Name of the Lord.” (James 5:10 NIV)
“Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will
be saved.” (Romans 10:13 NIV)
Can we make offerings to God?
Another facility to regain our relationship with
God is to make offerings to Him. This is typical of any
budding relationship. A young man will bring flowers to
a young woman as he is courting her. Why? Because
making an offering shows our care, and our intent to
please the person.
We can offer practically anything of value to God.
Except, we cannot offer God a living organism. We can
offer God a flower, some fruit, some water, or our meal
before we eat it. When we offer, we can recite one or
multiple of God’s Holy Names.
Such offerings, over time, build our relationship
with the Supreme Being. As we progress in making of-
ferings, we will begin to feel His presence as we make
the offering. We will begin to exchange a relationship
with Him.

205
A number of verses in the Bible have confirmed
the importance of making offerings to God. Here is one
of them, spoken by God Himself to Moses:
“Tell the Israelites to bring me an offering. You
are to receive the offering for me from everyone
whose heart prompts them to give.” (Exodus
25:2 NIV)
Notice that God says, “whose heart prompts them
to give.” God isn’t forcing people to offer to Him. He is
suggesting that this practice will help them re-establish
their relationship with Him. But they don’t have to. It is
their choice.
It is love that God wants. He doesn’t want our
stuff. He doesn’t want our food. He owns everything.
Rather, it is the expression of love that we have for Him
when we make an offering that He is seeking.
And it isn’t that God needs our love. Rather, we
need to love God. He simply wants us to be happy be-
cause He already loves each of us.
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind and
with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:30)
How does loving the Supreme Being and caring
for His children help us get out of hell?
By putting our hearts and minds upon the Su-
preme Being, and caring for His children, we return to
our innate position as one of God’s loving servants. Be-
neath our physical bodies, and beneath all of our self-
centeredness lies the spirit-person within.
206
This spirit-person needs to love and be loved. This
is why giving and receiving love is sought out amongst
all things by each of us. But we don’t find giving and re-
ceiving love satisfying until we place it upon the
Supreme Being. This fullness will also automatically give
us love for His children as we see others as they are – like
us, children of God.
By putting our hearts, minds and activities upon
the Supreme Being – wanting to please Him, serve Him
and glorify Him – we no longer need to return to the
physical world and take on another physical body after
this lifetime ends. We the spirit-persons become gradu-
ally cleansed, allowing us to eventually return home to
the spiritual realm and return to our innate relationship
with God.
And what is the goal of life?
“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your
strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:5 NIV)
“Love the LORD your God and keep his
requirements, His decrees, His laws and His
commands always.” (Deuteronomy 11:1 NIV)
“So if you faithfully obey the commands I am
giving you today – to love the LORD your God
and to serve Him with all your heart and with all
your soul...” (Deuteronomy 11:13 NIV)
“If you carefully observe all these commands I
am giving you to follow – to love the LORD your

207
God, to walk in all His ways and to hold fast to
Him...” (Deuteronomy 11:22 NIV)
“...because you carefully follow all these laws I
command you today – to love the LORD your
God and to walk always in His
ways...” (Deuteronomy 19:19 NIV)
“For I command you today to love the LORD
your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His
commands, decrees and laws” (Deuteronomy
30:16 NIV)
“...and that you may love the LORD your God,
listen to His voice, and hold fast to him. For the
LORD is your life....” (Deuteronomy 30:20 NIV)
“But be very careful to keep the commandment
and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD
gave you: to love the LORD your God, to walk in
all His ways, to obey his commands, to hold fast
to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and
all your soul.” (Joshua 22:5 NIV)
“So be very careful to love the LORD your
God.” (Joshua 23:11 NIV)
“Love the LORD, all His saints!” (Psalms 31:23 NIV)
“Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for He
guards the lives of His faithful ones and delivers
them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalms
97:10 NIV)
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is
208
the first and greatest commandment.” (Matthew
22:37-38 NIV)
, “The most important of all the instructions is,
‘Hear O Israel – the LORD our God is our only
Lord –and you shall love the LORD your God
with all your heart, with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength’ – this is
the most important instruction.” (Mark 12:29-30
NIV)
“’Love the LORD your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your strength and
with all your mind;’ and ‘Love others as
yourself.’” (Luke 10:27 NIV)

209
References and Bibliography
Ackerman D. A Natural History of the Senses. New York: Vintage,
1991.
Aissa J, Harran H, Rabeau M, Boucherie S, Brouilhet H, Benveniste J.
Tissue levels of histamine, PAF-acether and lysopaf-acether in
carrageenan-induced granuloma in rats. Int Arch Allergy Im-
munol. 1996 Jun;110(2):182-6.
Aïssa J, Jurgens P, Litime M, Béhar I, Benveniste J. Electronic
transmission of the cholinergic signal. FASEB Jnl. 1995;9:
A683.
Aïssa J, Litime M, Attias E, Allal A, Benveniste J. Transfer of molecu-
lar signals via electronic circuitry. FASEB Jnl. 1993;7: A602.
Aïssa J, Litime M, Attias E, Benveniste J. Molecular signaling at high
dilution or by means of electronic circuitry. Jnl Immun.
1993;150: 146A.
Aïssa J, Nathan N, Arnoux B, Benveniste J. Biochemical and cellular
effects of heparin-protamine injection in rabbits are partially
inhibited by a PAF-acether receptor antagonist. Eur J Phar-
macol. 1996 Apr 29;302(1-3):123-8.
Appleman P ed. Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: Nor-
ton, 1970.
Asch, S.E. Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and
Distortion of Judgment. In Guetzkow J, ed., Groups, Leader-
ship and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie, 1951. Petiot JF, Sainte-
Laudy J, Benveniste J. Interpretation of results on a human
basophil degranulation test. Ann Biol Clin (Paris).
1981;39(6):355-9.
Avanzini G, Lopez L, Koelsch S, Majno M. The Neurosciences and
Music II: From Perception to Performance. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences. 2006 Mar;1060.
Bache C. Lifecycles: Reincarnation and the Web of Life. New York:
Paragon House, 1994.

210
Bannerjee H. Americans Who Have Been Reincarnated. New York:
Macmillan, 1980.
Baranauskas G, Nistri A. Sensitization of pain pathways in the spi-
nal cord: cellular mechanisms. Prog Neurobiol. 1998
Feb;54(3):349-65.
Barker A. Scientific Method in Ptolemy's Harmonics. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ Press, 2000.
Bastide M, Daurat V, Doucet-Jaboeuf M, Pélegrin A, Dorfman P.
Immunomodulator activity of very low doses of thymulin in
mice, Int J Immunotherapy. 1987;3:191-200.
Bastide M, Doucet-Jaboeuf M, Daurat V. Activity and chronophar-
macology of very low doses of physiological immune
inducers. Immun Today. 1985;6: 234-235.
Bastide M. Immunological examples on ultra high dilution re-
search. In: Endler P, Schulte J (eds.): Ultra High Dilution.
Physiology and Physics. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, 1994:27-34.
Beauvais F, Bidet B, Descours B, Hieblot C, Burtin C, Benveniste J.
Regulation of human basophil activation. I. Dissociation of
cationic dye binding from histamine release in activated hu-
man basophils. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1991 May;87(5):1020-
8.
Beauvais F, Burtin C, Benveniste J. Voltage-dependent ion chan-
nels on human basophils: do they exist? Immunol Lett. 1995
May;46(1-2):81-3.
Beauvais F, Echasserieau K, Burtin C, Benveniste J. Regulation of
human basophil activation; the role of Na+ and Ca2+ in IL-3-
induced potentiation of IgE-mediated histamine release from
human basophils. Clin Exp Immunol. 1994 Jan;95(1):191-4.
Beauvais F, Shimahara T, Inoue I, Hieblot C, Burtin C, Benveniste J.
Regulation of human basophil activation. II. Histamine release
is potentiated by K+ efflux and inhibited by Na+ influx. J Im-
munol. 1992 Jan 1;148(1):149-54.
Becker R. The Body Electric. New York: Morrow, 1985.
Bensky D, Gable A, Kaptchuk T (transl.). Chinese Herbal Medicine
Materia Medica. Seattle: Eastland Press, 1986.
211
Benveniste J, Aïssa J, Guillonnet D. A simple and fast method for in
vivo demonstration of electromagnetic molecular signaling
(EMS) via high dilution or computer recording. FASEB Jnl.
1999;13: A163.
Benveniste J, Aïssa J, Guillonnet D. Digital biology : Specificity of
the digitized molecular signal. FASEB Jnl. 1998;12: A412.
Benveniste J, Aïssa J, Guillonnet D. The molecular signal is not
functional in the absence of "informed" water. FASEB Jnl.
1999;13: A163.
Benveniste J, Aissa J, Litime MH, Tsaegaca GT, Thomas Y. Transfer
of the molecular signal by electronic amplification. FASEB J.
1994;8:A398.
Benveniste J, Arnoux B, Hadji L. Highly dilute antigen increases
coronary flow of isolated heart from immunized guinea-pigs.
FASEB Jnl. 1992;6: A1610.
Benveniste J, Davenas E, Ducot B, Cornillet B, Poitevin B, Spira A.
L'agitation de solutions hautement diluées n'induit pas d'ac-
tivité biologique spécifique. Comptes-Rendus de l'Académie
des Sciences de Paris. 1991;312 :461-466.
Benveniste J, Davenas E, Ducot B, Spira A. Basophil achromasia by
dilute ligand: a reappraisal. FASEB Jnl. 1991;5: A1008.
Benveniste J, Ducot B, Spira A. Memory of water revisited. Nature.
1994 Aug 4;370(6488):322.
Benveniste J, Guillonnet D. QED and digital biology. Riv Biol. 2004
Jan-Apr;97(1):169-72.
Benveniste J, Jurgens P, Aïssa J. Digital recording/transmission of
the cholinergic signal. FASEB Jnl. 1996;10: A1479.
Benveniste J, Jurgens P, Hsueh W, Aïssa J. Transatlantic transfer of
digitized antigen signal by telephone link. Jnl Aller Clin Im-
mun. 1997;99: S175.
Benveniste J, Kahhak L, Guillonnet D. Specific remote detection of
bacteria using an electromagnetic / digital procedure. FASEB
Jnl. 1999;13: A852.
Benveniste J. Benveniste on Nature investigation. Science. 1988
Aug 26;241(4869):1028.
Benveniste J. Benveniste on the Benveniste affair. Nature. 1988 Oct
212
27;335(6193):759.
Benveniste J. Diagnosis of allergic diseases by basophil count and
in vitro degranulation using manual and automated tests.
Nouv Presse Med. 1981 Jan 24;10(3):165-9.
Benveniste J. Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998
Jan 31;351 (9099):367.
Berk M, Dodd S, Henry M. Do ambient electromagnetic fields af-
fect behaviour? A demonstration of the relationship between
geomagnetic storm activity and suicide. Bioelectromagnetics.
2006 Feb;27(2):151-5.
Bitbol M, Luisi PL. Autopoiesis with or without cognition: defining
life at its edge. J R Soc Interface. 2004 Nov 22;1(1):99-107.
Bjerregaard C. Plato and the Greeks on Music as an Element in
Education. The Word. 1913 Feb.
Blackmore SJ. Near-death experiences. J R Soc Med. 1996
Feb;89(2):73-6.
Bourgine P, Stewart J. Autopoiesis and cognition. Artif Life. 2004
Summer;10(3):327-45.
Bowler PJ. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Antievolutionary Theories in
the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1983.
Braunstein G, Labat C, Brunelleschi S, Benveniste J, Marsac J, Brink
C. Evidence that the histamine sensitivity and responsiveness
of guinea-pig isolated trachea are modulated by epithelial
prostaglandin E2 production. Br J Pharmacol. 1988
Sep;95(1):300-8.
Burr H, Smith G, Strong L. Bio-electric Properties of Cancer-
Resistant and Cancer-Susceptible Mice. American Journal of
Cancer. 1938;32:240-248
Burr H. The Fields of Life. New York: Ballantine, 1972.
Calvin W. The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks.
Boston: MIT Press, 1995.
Churchill G, Doerge R. Empirical threshold values for quantitative
trait mapping. Genetics 1994;138::963-971.
Chwirot WB, Popp F. White-light-induced luminescence and mi-
totic activity of yeast cells. Folia Histochemica et
Cytobiologica. 1991;29(4):155.
213
Citro M, Endler PC, Pongratz W, Vinattieri C, Smith CW, Schulte J.
Hormone effects by electronic transmission. FASEB J.
1995:Abstract 12161.
Citro M, Smith CW, Scott-Morley A, Pongratz W, Endler PC. Transfer
of information from molecules by means of electronic ampli-
fication, in P.C. Endler, J. Schulte (eds.): Ultra High Dilution.
Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers. 1994;209-214.
Cohen S, Popp F. Biophoton emission of the human body. J
Photochem & Photobio. 1997;B 40:187-189.
Cohen S, Popp F. Low-level luminescence of the human skin. Skin
Res Tech. 1997;3:177-180.
Crick F. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1981.
Davenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B, Mi-
adonna B, Tedeschi A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon P, Sainte-
Laudy J, Poitevin B, Benveniste J. Human basophil degranula-
tion triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Nature.
1988;333: 816-818.
Davenas E, Poitevin B, Benveniste J. Effect on mouse peritoneal
macrophages of orally administered very high dilutions of sil-
ica. European Journal of Pharmacology. 1987;135: 313-319.
Davis GE Jr, Lowell WE. Chaotic solar cycles modulate the inci-
dence and severity of mental illness. Med Hypotheses.
2004;62(2):207-14.
Davis GE Jr, Lowell WE. Solar cycles and their relationship to hu-
man disease and adaptability. Med Hypotheses.
2006;67(3):447-61.
Davis GE Jr, Lowell WE. The Sun determines human longevity:
teratogenic effects of chaotic solar radiation. Med Hypothe-
ses. 2004;63(4):574-81.
Dawkins R. Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: Viking Press,
1996.
Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977 (1989 edi-
tion).
Dennett D. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind & Psychol-
214
ogy. Cambridge: MIT Press., 1980.
Dennett,D. Consciousness Explained. London: Little, Brown and
Co., 1991.
Depue BE, Banich MT, Curran T. Suppression of emotional and
nonemotional content in memory: effects of repetition on
cognitive control. Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):441-7.
Dere E, Kart-Teke E, Huston JP, De Souza Silva MA. The case for
episodic memory in animals. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.
2006;30(8):1206-24.
Dunne B, Jahn R, Nelson R. Precognitive Remote Perception.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory Re-
port. Princeton. 1983 Aug.
Egon G, Chartier-Kastler E, Denys P, Ruffion A. Spinal cord injury
patient and Brindley neurostimulation. Prog Urol. 2007
May;17(3):535-9.
Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of
Light Might Change. Science Daily. 2001 Feb 12.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
2001/02/010212075309.htm. Acc. 2007 Oct.
Electronic Evidence of Auras, Chakras in UCLA Study. Brain/Mind
Bulletin. 1978;3:9 Mar 20.
Endler P, Pongratz W, van Wijk R, Waltl K, Hilgers H, Brandmaier R.
Transmission of hormone information by non-molecular
means. FASEB Jnl. 1994;8: A400.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Kastberger G, Wiegant F, Schulte J. The
effect of highly diluted agitated thyroxine on the climbing ac-
tivity of frogs, J Vet Hum Tox. 1994;36:56-59.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Smith CW, Schulte J. Non-molecular infor-
mation transfer from thyroxine to frogs with regard to
'homoeopathic' toxicology, J Vet Hum Tox. 1995:37:259-260.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Van Wijk R, Kastberger G, Haidvogl M. Ef-
fects of highly diluted sucussed thyroxine on metamorphosis
of highland frogs, Berlin J Res Hom. 1991;1:151-160.
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Van Wijk R, Waltl K, Hilgers H, Brandmaier R.
Transmission of hormone information by non-molecular
means, FASEB J. 1994;8:A400.
215
Endler PC, Pongratz W, Van Wijk R, Wiegant F, Waltl K, Gehrer M,
Hilgers H. A zoological example on ultra high dilution re-
search. In: Endler PC, Schulte J (eds.): Ultra High Dilution.
Physiology and Physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers. 1994:39-68.
Endler PC, Pongratz W. On effects of agitated highly diluted thy-
roxine (E-30). Comprehensive report, available at the Institute
for Zoology. University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, A-8010
Graz, 1994.
Endler PC, Schulte, J. Ultra High Dilution. Physiology and Physics.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ, 1994.
Fiore E. You Have Been Here Before. New York: Ballantine, 1978.
Forget-Dubois N, Boivin M, Dionne G, Pierce T, Tremblay RE, Pe-
russe D. A longitudinal twin study of the genetic and
environmental etiology of maternal hostile-reactive behavior
during infancy and toddlerhood. Infant Behav Dev. 2007
Aug;30(3):453-65.
Gerber R. Vibrational Healing. Sante Fe: Bear, 1988.
Goldberg B. Past Lives, Future Lives. New York: Ballantine, 1982.
Gould SJ. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of
history. New York: Penguin Books, 1989.
Grad B. A Telekinetic Effect on Plant Growth. Intl Jnl Parapsy.
1964;6:473.
Grad B. The 'Laying on of Hands': Implications for Psychotherapy,
Gentling, and the Placebo Effect. Jnl Amer Soc for Psych Res.
1967 Oct;61(4):286-305.
Grad, B. A telekinetic effect on plant growth II. Experiments involv-
ing treatment of saline in stoppered bottles. Internl J
Parapsychol. 1964;6:473-478, 484-488.
Grasso F, Grillo C, Musumeci F, Triglia A, Rodolico G, Cammisuli F,
Rinzivillo C, Fragati G, Santuccio A, Rodolico M. Photon emis-
sion from normal and tumour human tissues. Experientia.
1992;48:10-13.
Grasso F, Musumeci F, Triglia A, Rodolico G, Cammisuli F, Rinzivillo
C, Fragati G, Santuccio A, Rodolico M. In Stanley P, Kricka L
(ed). Ultraweak Luminescence from Cancer Tissues. In Biolu-
216
minescence and Chemiluminescence - Current Status. New
York: Wiley, 1991:277-280.
Grasso F, Musumeci F, Triglia A. Yanbastiev M. Borisova, S. Self-
irradiation effect on yeast cells. Photochemistry and Photo-
biology. 1991;54(1):147-149.
Hadji L, Arnoux B, Benveniste J. Effect of dilute histamine on coro-
nary flow of guinea-pig isolated heart. FASEB J. 1991;5:A1583.
Hagins WA, Penn RD, Yoshikami S. Dark current and photocurrent
in retinal rods. Biophys J. 1970 May;10(5):380-412.
Hagins WA, Robinson WE, Yoshikami S. Ionic aspects of excitation
in rod outer segments.
Hagins WA, Yoshikami S. Ionic mechanisms in excitation of photo-
receptors. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1975 Dec 30;264:314-25.
Hahnemann S. Oreganon of Homeopathic Medicine. New York: W.
Radde, 1843.
Halpern S. Tuning the Human Instrument. Palo Alto, CA: Spectrum
Research Institute, 1978.
Hamel P. Through Music to the Self: How to Appreciate and Ex-
perience Music. Boulder: Shambala, 1979.
Hameroff SR, Kaszniak A, Scott AC (eds.): Toward a Science of Con-
sciousness - The First Tucson Discussions and Debates.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
Hameroff SR, Penrose R. Conscious events as orchestrated space-
time selections. J Consc Studies. 1996;3(1):36-53.
Hameroff SR, Smith, S, Watt.R. Nonlinear electrodynamics in cy-
toskeletal protein lattices. In: Adey W, Lawrence A (eds.),
Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems. 1984:567-
583.
Hameroff SR, Watt, R. Information processing in microtubules. J
Theor Biology. 1982;98:549-561.
Hameroff SR. Coherence in the cytoskeleton: Implications for bio-
logical information processing. In: Fröhlich H. (ed.): Biological
Coherence and Response to External Stimuli. Springer, Berlin-
New York 1988, pp.242-264.
Hameroff SR. Light is heavy: Wave mechanics in proteins - A
microtubule hologram model of consciousness. Proceedings
217
2nd. International Congress on Psychotronic Research. Monte
Carlo, 1975:168-169.
Hameroff SR. Ultimate Biocomputing - Biomolecular Conscious-
ness and Nanotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987.
Hameroff, SR. Ch'i: A neural hologram? Microtubules, biohologra-
phy and acupuncture. Am J Chin Med. 1974;2(2):163-170.
Hardin P. Transcription regulation within the circadian clock: the
E-box and beyond. J Biol Rhythms. 2004 Oct;19(5):348-60.
Harlow HF, Dodsworth RO, Harlow MK. Total social isolation in
monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1965.
Harlow HF. Development of affection in primates. In Bliss E (ed):
Roots of Behavior. New York: Harper, 1962: 157-166.
Harlow HF. Early social deprivation and later behavior in the mon-
key. In: Abrams A, Gurner H, Tomal J (eds): Unfinished tasks in
the behavioral sciences. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. 1964:
154-173.
Haye-Legrand I, Norel X, Labat C, Benveniste J, Brink C. Antigenic
contraction of guinea pig tracheal preparations passively sen-
sitized with monoclonal IgE: pharmacological modulation. Int
Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1988;87(4):342-8.
Henig RM. What its like to escape from the brink of death. National
Geographic, April 2016, p.47
Hoyle F. Evolution from Space. Londong: JM Dent, 1981
Huffman C. Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, philosopher and
Mathematician King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
Hur YM, Rushton JP. Genetic and environmental contributions to
prosocial behaviour in 2- to 9-year-old South Korean twins.
Biol Lett. 2007 Aug 28.
Inaba H. INABA Biophoton. Exploratory Research for Advanced
Technology. Japan Science and Technology Agency. 1991.
http://www.jst.go.jp/erato/
project/isf_P/isf_P.html. Acc. 2006 Nov.
Ivanovic-Zuvic F, de la Vega R, Ivanovic-Zuvic N, Renteria P.
Affective disorders and solar activity. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2005
Jan-Feb;33(1):7-12.
218
Jahn R, Dunne, B. Margins of Reality: the Role of Consciousness in
the Physical World. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1987.
Jahn R, Dunne B. Science of the subjective. J Sci Expl.
1997;11(2):201-224.
Jahn R, Dunne B, Nelson R. Engineering anomalies research. J Sci
Expl. 1987;1(1):21-50.
Jahn R, Dunne B, Nelson R, Dobyns Y, Bradish G. Correlations of
random binary sequences with pre-stated operator intention:
A review of a 12-year program. J Sci Expl. 1997; 11(3):345-368.
Jahn R, Nelson R, Dunne B. Variance Effects in REG Series Score
Distributions, Technical Note PEAR 85001. Princeton Engi-
neering Anomalies Research, Princeton Univ. 1985 June.
Johari H. Ayurvedic Massage: Traditional Indian Techniques for
Balancing Body and Mind. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts, 1996.
Johari H. Chakras. Rochester, VT: Destiny, 1987.
Johanson D. Ancestors. New York: Villard Books, 1994.
Johnston A. A spatial property of the retino-cortical mapping. Spa-
tial Vision. 1986;1(4):319-331.
Karnstedt J. Ions and Consciousness. Whole Self. 1991 Spring.
Keil J, Stevenson I. Do cases of the reincarnation type show similar
features over many years? A study of Turkish cases. J. Sci. Ex-
ploration. 1999;13(2) 189-198.Pasricha S. Claims of
reincarnation: An Empirical Study of Cases in India. New Delhi:
Harman, 1990.
Kinoshameg SA, Persinger MA. Suppression of experimental aller-
gic encephalomyelitis in rats by 50-nT, 7-Hz amplitude-
modulated nocturnal magnetic fields depends on when after
inoculation the fields are applied. J Neulet. 2004;08:18.
Kubler-Ross E. On Life After Death. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts,
1991.
Lafrenière, G. The material Universe is made purely out of Aether.
Matter is made of Waves. 2002:
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm. Acc. 2007 June.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Palarea RE, Cohen J, Rohling ML. Break-
ing up is hard to do: unwanted pursuit behaviors following
219
the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence Vict. 2000
Spring;15(1):73-90.
Litime M, Aïssa J, Benveniste J. Antigen signaling at high dilution.
FASEB Jnl. 1993;7: A602.
Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford
Press, 1979.
Lucas A, Morley R, Cole T, Lister G, Leeson-Payne C. Breast milk and
subsequent intelligence quotient in children born premature.
Lancet. 1992;339:261-264.
Lucas WB (ed). Regression Therapy: A Handbook for Professionals.
Past-Life Therapy. Crest Park, CA: Deep Forest Press, 1993.
MacKay D. Science, Chance, and Providence. Oxford: Oxford Univ
Press, 1978.
Maes HH, Silberg JL, Neale MC, Eaves LJ. Genetic and cultural
transmission of antisocial behavior: an extended twin parent
model. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2007 Feb;10(1):136-50.
Marasanov SB, Matveev II. Correlation between protracted pre-
medication and complication in cancer patients operated on
during intense solar activity. Vopr Onkol. 2007;53(1):96-9.
Marks C. Commissurotomy, Consciousness, and Unity of Mind.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981.
Marks L. The Unity of the Senses: Interrelations among the Modali-
ties. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an
evolutionist. Boston: Belknap Press, 1988.
Melzack R, Wall P. Pain Mechanisms: A New Theory. Science.
1965;150:171-179.
Melzack R. Evolution of the neuromatrix theory of pain. The prithvi
raj lecture: presented at the third world congress of world in-
stitute of pain, barcelona 2004. Pain Pract. 2005 Jun;5(2):85-
94.
Melzack R. Pain: past, present and future. Can J Exp Psychol. 1993
Dec;47(4):615-29.
Melzack R. Pain—an overview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999
Oct;43(9):880-4.
Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New
220
York: Harper, 1974.
Mills A. A replication study: Three cases of children in northern
India who are said to remember a previous life," J. Sci. Explo-
ration 3, No. 2 (1989) pp. 133-184Mills A. Moslem cases of the
reincarnation type in northern India: A test of the hypothesis
of imposed identification, Part I: Analysis of 26 cases. J. Sci.
Exploration. 1990;4(2): 171-188.
Mishkin M, Appenzeller T. The Anatomy of Memory. Sci. Am. 1987
June.
Mishkin M. Memory in monkeys severely impaired by combined
but not by separatt e removal of amygdala and hippocampus.
Nature. 1978;273: 297-298.
Mitchell JL. Out-of-Body Experiences: A Handbook. New York: Bal-
lantine, 1981.
Monod J. Chance and Necessity. New York: Vintage, 1972.
Monroe R. Far Journeys. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1985.
Monroe R. Journeys Out of the Body. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Press, 1977.
Moody R. Coming Back: A Psychiatrist Explores Past-Life Journeys.
New York: Bantam Books, 1991.
Moody, R. Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon -
Survival of Bodily Death. New York: Bantam, 1975.
Moody, R. Reflections on Life After Life: More Important Discover-
ies In The Ongoing Investigation Of Survival Of Life After
Bodily Death. New York: Bantam, 1977.
Moore RY. Circadian Rhythms: A Clock for the Ages. Science 1999
June 25;284(5423):2102 – 2103.
Moore RY. Neural control of the pineal gland. Behav Brain Res.
1996;73(1-2):125-30.
Moore RY. Organization and function of a central nervous system
circadian oscillator: the suprachiasmatic hypothalamic nu-
cleus. Fed Proc. 1983 Aug;42(11):2783-9.
Morse M. Closer to the Light. New York: Ivy Books, 1990.
Mumby DG, Wood ER, Pinel J. Object-recognition memory is only
mildly impaired in rats with lesions of the hippocampus and
amygdala. Psychobio. 1992;20: 18-27.
221
Murchie G. The Seven Mysteries of Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1978.
Murphy R. Organon Philosophy Workbook. Blacksburg, VA: HANA,
1994.
Musaev AV, Nasrullaeva SN, Zeinalov RG. Effects of solar activity on
some demographic indices and morbidity in Azerbaijan with
reference to A. L. Chizhevsky's theory. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter
Lech Fiz Kult. 2007 May-Jun;(3):38-42.
Netheron M. Past Lives Therapy. New York: Morrow, 1978.
Ostrander S, Schroeder L, Ostrander N. Super-Learning. New York:
Delta, 1979.
Otani S. Memory trace in prefrontal cortex: theory for the cogni-
tive switch. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2002 Nov;77(4):563-77.
Otsu A, Chinami M, Morgenthale S, Kaneko Y, Fujita D, Shirakawa T.
Correlations for number of sunspots, unemployment rate,
and suicide mortality in Japan. Percept Mot Skills. 2006
Apr;102(2):603-8.
Ott J. Color and Light: Their Effects on Plants, Animals, and People
(Series of seven articles in seven issues). International Journal
for Biosocial Research. 1985-1991.
Palmer J. Hit-contingent response biases in Helmut Schmidt’s
automated precognition experiments. J Parapsy. 1997:61;
135-141.
Partonen T, Haukka J, Nevanlinna H, Lonnqvist J. Analysis of the
seasonal pattern in suicide. J Affect Disord. 2004
Aug;81(2):133-9.
Petiot JF, Sainte-Laudy J, Benveniste J. Interpretation of results on
a human basophil degranulation test. Ann Biol Clin (Paris).
1981;39(6):355-9.
Pittalwala I. Research Shows Earth’s Earliest Animal Ecosystem Was
Complex and included Sexual Reproduction. UC Riverside
Newsroom. 2008 Mar 20.
Plotkin H. Darwin Machines and the Nature of Knowledge: Con-
cerning adaptations, instinct and the evolution of
intelligence. New York: Penguin, 1994.
Poitevin B, Davenas E, Benveniste J. In vitro immunological de-
222
granulation of human basophils is modulated by lung hista-
mine and Apis mellifica. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1988
Apr;25(4):439-44.
Poitevin B, Davenas E, Benveniste J. In vitro immunological de-
granulation of human basophils is modulated by Lung
histamine and Apis mellifica. British Journal of Clinical Phar-
macology. 1988;25: 439-444.
Polkinghorne J. Science and Providence. Boston: Shambhala Pub-
lications, 1989.
Pongratz W, Endler PC, Poitevin B, Kartnig T. Effect of extremely
diluted plant hormone on cell culture, Proc. 1995 AAAS Ann.
Meeting, Atlanta, 1995.
Popp F Chang J. Mechanism of interaction between electromag-
netic fields and living organisms. Science in China. 2000
Series C;43(5):507-518.
Popp F, Chang J, Herzog A, Yan Z, Yan Y. Evidence of non-classical
(squeezed) light in biological systems. Physics Lett.
2002;293:98-102.
Popp F, Yan Y. Delayed luminescence of biological systems in
terms of coherent states. Phys.Lett. 2000;293:91-97.
Popp F. Properties of biophotons and their theoretical implica-
tions. Indian J Exper Biology. 2003 May;41:391-402.
Popp F. Molecular Aspects of Carcinogenesis. In Deutsch E, Moser
K, Rainer H, Stacher A (eds.). Molecular Base of Malignancy.
Stuttgart: G.Thieme, 1976:47-55.
Protheroe WM, Captiotti ER, Newsom GH. Exploring the Universe.
Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1989.
Puthoff H, Targ R, May E. Experimental Psi Research: Implication for
Physics. AAAS Proceedings of the 1979 Symposium on the
Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. 1981.
Puthoff H, Targ R. A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer
Over Kilometer distances: Historical Perspective and Recent
Research. Proc. IEEE. 1976;64(3):329-254.
Radin D. The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge,
1997.
Reilly D, Taylor M, Beattie N, Campbell J, McSharry C, Aitchison T,
223
Carter R, Stevenson R. Is evidence for homoeopathy repro-
ducible? Lancet, 1994;344: 1601-1606.
Reilly D. The puzzle of homeopathy. J Altern Complement Med.
2001;7 Suppl 1:S103-9.
Rieder M. Mission to Millboro. Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin, 1995.
Rieder M. Return to Millboro: The Reincarnation Drama Continues.
Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin, 1995.
Ring K. Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death
Experience. New York: Quill, 1982.
Sabom M. Light and Death: One Doctor's Fascinating Account of
Near Death Experiences. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub-
lishing, 1998.
Sabom, M. Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1982.
Sanders R. Slow brain waves play key role in coordinating complex
activity. UC Berkeley News. 2006 Sep 14.
Schlebusch KP, Maric-Oehler W, Popp FA. Biophotonics in the in-
frared spectral range reveal acupuncture meridian structure
of the body. J Altern Complement Med. 2005 Feb;11(1):171-3.
Schlebusch KP, Maric-Oehler W, Popp FA. Biophotonics in the in-
frared spectral range reveal acupuncture meridian structure
of the body. J Altern Complement Med. 2005 Feb;11(1):171-3.
Schmidt H, Quantum processes predicted? New Sci. 1969 Oct 16.
Serway R. Physics For Scientists & Engineers. Philadelphia: Har-
court Brace, 1992.
Shaffer D. Developmental Psychology: Theory, Research and Ap-
plications. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1985.
Sharp KC. After the Light. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1995.
Shui-Yin Lo. Anomalous State of Ice. Mod Phys Lttrs. 1996;10(19):
909-919.
Shupak NM, Prato FS, Thomas AW. Human exposure to a specific
pulsed magnetic field: effects on thermal sensory and pain
thresholds. Neurosci Lett. 2004 Jun 10;363(2):157-62.
Sicher F, Targ E, Moore D, Smith H. A Randomized Double-Blind
Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a Population With
Advanced AIDS. Targ R, Katra J, Brown D, Wiegand W. Viewing
224
the future: A pilot study with an error-detecting protocol. J
Sci Explo, 9:3, pp. 367-380, 1995.
Simpson G. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia
Univ Press, 1953.
Smith CW. Coherence in living biological systems. Neural Network
World. 1994:4(3):379-388.
Smith MJ. The Influence on Enzyme Growth By the 'Laying on of
Hands: Dimenensions of Healing. Los Altos, California: Acad-
emy of Parapsychology and Medicine, 1973.
Soul Has Weight, Physician Thinks. New York Times. 1907 March
11:5.
Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests. Science
Daily. 1999 Oct 6.
Spence A. Basic Human Anatomy. Menlo Park, CA: Benja-
min/Commings, 1986.
Spetner L. Not By Chance! -Shattering The Modern Theory of Evo-
lution. New York: The Judaica Press, 1997.
Spillane M. Good Vibrations, A Sound ‘Diet’ for Plants. The Grow-
ing Edge. 1991 Spring.
Squire LR, Zola-Morgan S. The medial temporal lobe memory sys-
tem. Science. 1991;253(5026):1380-1386.
Stanford, C. B. The hunting ecology of wild chimpanzees: Implica-
tions for the evolutionary ecology of Pliocene hominids.
American Anthropologist. 1996;98: 96-113.
Steck B. Effects of optical radiation on man. Light Resch Techn.
1982;14:130-141.
Stevenson I, Samararatne G. Three new cases of the reincarnation
type in Sri Lanka with written records made before verifica-
tion. J. Sci. Exploration. 1988;2(2): 217-238.
Stevenson I. Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Charlottesville, VA:
Univ. of Virginia Press. Vol. 1 Ten Cases in India (1975) Vol. 2
Ten Cases in Sri Lanka, 1977. Vol. 3 Twelve Cases in Lebanon
and Turkey, 1980. Vol. 4 Twelve Cases in Thailand and Burma,
1983.
Stevenson I. Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question

225
of Reincarnation. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia
Press, 1987.Stevenson I. American children who claim to re-
member previous lives. J. Nervous and Mental Disease.
1983;171: 742-748.
Stevenson I. European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland and Co., 2003.
Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Eti-
ology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. (2 volumes). Westport,
CN: Praeger Publishers, 1997.
Stevenson I. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. New York:
American Society for Psychical Research, 1967.
Stevenson I.Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Westport,
CN: Praeger, 1997.
Stoupel E, Babyev E, Mustafa F, Abramson E, Israelevich P, Sulkes J.
Acute myocardial infarction occurrence: Environmental links -
Baku 2003-2005 data. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Aug;13(8):BR175-
179.
Stoupel E, Kalediene R, Petrauskiene J, Gaizauskiene A, Israelevich
P, Abramson E, Sulkes J. Monthly number of newborns and
environmental physical activity. Medicina Kaunas.
2006;42(3):238-41.
Stoupel E, Monselise Y, Lahav J. Changes in autoimmune markers
of the anti-cardiolipin syndrome on days of extreme geo-
mamagnetic activity. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol.
2006;17(4):269-78.
Stoupel EG, Frimer H, Appelman Z, Ben-Neriah Z, Dar H, Fejgin
MD, Gershoni-Baruch R, Manor E, Barkai G, Shalev S, Gelman-
Kohan Z, Reish O, Lev D, Davidov B, Goldman B, Shohat M.
Chromosome aberration and environmental physical activity:
Down syndrome and solar and cosmic ray activity, Israel,
1990-2000. Int J Biometeorol. 2005 Sep;50(1):1-5.
Strange BA, Dolan RJ. Anterior medial temporal lobe in human
cognition: memory for fear and the unexpected. Cognit Neu-
ropsychiatry. 2006 May;11(3):198-218.
Suppes P, Han B, Epelboim J, Lu ZL. Invariance of brain-wave rep-
resentations of simple visual images and their names.
226
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Psychol-
ogy-BS. 1999;96(25):14658-14663.
Targ R, Puthoff H. Information transfer under conditions of sensory
shielding. Nature. 1975;251:602-607.
Thakur CP, Sharma D. Full moon and crime. Br Med J. 1984 De-
cember 22; 289(6460): 1789-1791.
Thomas Y, Litime H, Benveniste J. Modulation of human neutro-
phil activation by "electronic" phorbol myristate acetate
(PMA). FASEB Jnl. 1996;10: A1479.
Thomas Y, Schiff M, Belkadi L, Jurgens P, Kahhak L, Benveniste J.
Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted
phorbol-myristate acetate. Med Hypoth. 2000;54: 33-39.
Thomas Y, Schiff M, Litime M, Belkadi L, Benveniste J. Direct trans-
mission to cells of a molecular signal (phorbol myristate
acetate, PMA) via an electronic device. FASEB Jnl. 1995;9:
A227.
Thomas-Anterion C, Jacquin K, Laurent B. Differential mechanisms
of impairment of remote memory in Alzheimer's and fronto-
temporal dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000 Mar-
Apr;11(2):100-6.
Thompson D. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ
Press, 1992.
Tompkins, P, Bird C. The Secret Life of Plants. New York: Harper &
Row, 1973.
Triglia A, La Malfa G, Musumeci F, Leonardi C, Scordino A. Delayed
luminsecence as an indicator of tomato fruit quality. J Food
Sci. 1998;63:512-515.
Tsuei JJ, Lam Jr. F, Zhao Z. Studies in Bioenergetic Correlations—
Bioenergetic Regulatory Measurement Instruments and De-
vices. Am J Acupunct. 1988;16:345-9.
Tucker J. Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children's
Memories of Previous Lives. New York: St. Martin's, 2005.
Vaquero JM, Gallego MC. Sunspot numbers can detect pandemic
influenza A: the use of different sunspot numbers. Med Hy-
potheses. 2007;68(5):1189-90.
Vargha-Khadem F, Polkey CE. A review of cognitive outcome after
227
hemidecortication in humans. Adv Exp Med Biol.
1992;325:137-51.
Vyasadeva S. Srimad Bhagavatam. Approx rec 4000 BCE.
Wagenaar, W. Generation of random sequences by human sub-
jects: A critical survey of literature. Psych Bulletin.
1972:77(1):65-72.
Wambach H. Reliving Past Lives. New York: Bantam, 1978.Fiore E.
You Have Been Here Before. New York: Ballantine, 1978.
Weiss B. Many Lives, Many Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1988.
White J, Krippner S (eds). Future Science: Life Energies & the Phys-
ics of Paranormal Phenomena. Garden City: Anchor, 1977.
Whitfield KE, King G, Moller S, Edwards CL, Nelson T, Vandenbergh
D. Concordance rates for smoking among African-American
twins. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Mar;99(3):213-7.
Whittaker E. History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. New
York: Nelson LTD, 1953.
Whitton J. Life Between Life. New York: Warner, 1986.
Winchester AM. Biology and its Relation to Mankind. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969.
Wixted JT. A Theory About Why We Forget What We Once Knew.
CurrDir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(1):6-9.
Wolf, M. Beyond the Point Particle - A Wave Structure for the Elec-
tron. Galilean Electrodynamics. 1995 Oct;6(5): 83-91.
Wood M. The Book of Herbal Wisdom. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic,
1997.
Woolger R. Other Lives, Other Selves. New York: Bantam, 1988.
Youbicier-Simo BJ, Boudard F, Meckaouche M, Bastide M, Baylé JD.
The effects of embryonic bursectomy and in ovo administra-
tion of highly diluted bursin on adrenocorticotropic and
immune response of chicken, Int. J. Immunother. 1993;9:169-
190.
Zhang C, Popp, F., Bischof, M.(eds.). Electromagnetic standing
waves as background of acupuncture system. Current Devel-
opment in Biophysics - the Stage from an Ugly Duckling to a
Beautiful Swan. Hangzhou: Hangzhou University Press, 1996.
228